GEOTHERMAL GREENHOUSE

INFORMATION PACKAGE

Compiled and Edited by

Tonya Toni Boyd

March 2008
 GEOTHERMAL GREENHOUSE
INFORMATION PACKAGE

Compiled and Edited by

Tonya Toni Boyd

March 2008

Revised and updated from a similar publication

By Kevin Rafferty, PE and Tonya Boyd
June 1997
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION

SECTION 1 CROP MAREKT PRICES

Introduction 1
Vegetables 1
Floriculture 3
For More Information 4
References 5

SECTION 2 BUILDING AND OPERATING A GREENHOUSE

Introduction 1
Southwest Technology Development Institute 2
More Information 3
References 4

SECTION 3 CROP CULTURE INFORMATION

Introduction 1
Environmental Parameters 1
Temperature 1
Relative Humidity 2
Carbon Dioxide 2
Lights 2
Dissolved Oxygen 2
pH 2
Electric Conductivity 2
Tomatoes 2
Cucumbers 5
Hydroponic Lettuce 6
Carnations, Dianthus Caryophyllis L. 8
Roses 10
For More Information 11
References 14

SECTION 4 GREENHOUSE HEATING SYSTEMS

Introduction 1
Greenhouses Chapter 14
Geothermal Direct-Use Engineering and Design Guidebook 2
SECTION 5 GREEHOUSE HEATING EQUIPMENT
SELECTION SPREADSHEET

Introduction 1
Primary Input 2
Primary Output 3
Input / Output Screenshot 5
Input / Output Spreadsheet Cell Entries 5
Unit Heaters 9
Unit Heaters Screenshot 11
Unit Heaters Spreadsheet Cell Entries 11
Finned Pipe 14
Finned Pipe Screenshot 15
Finned Pipe Spreadsheet Cell Entries 15
Bare Tube 17
Bare Tube Screenshot 19
Bare Tube Spreadsheet Cell Entries 19
Fan Coil Units 22
Fan Coil / Bare Tube 24
Fan Coil / Bare Tube Screenshot 25
Fan Coil / Bare Tube Spreadsheet Cell Entries 26
GLW Unit Heaters 29
GLW Unit Heaters Screenshot 31
GLW Unit Heaters Spreadsheet Cell Entries 31
Gas-Fired Unit Heaters 32
Gas Fired Unit Heaters Screenshot 33
Gas Fired Unit Heaters Spreadsheet Cell Entries 33

SECTION 6 VENDOR INFORMATION

Introduction 1
Greenhouse Supplies 1
Hydroponic Systems 2
Greenhouse Manufacturers and Suppliers 2
Plant Materials Seeds and Plants 3
Well Pumps 4
Lineshaft Turbine 4
Submersible Electric 4
Variable Speed Drives 5
Plate Heat Exchanger 5
Piping 6
Polybutylene/Polyethylene 6
Fiberglass 6
Pre-Insulated 6
Space Heating Equipment 7
SECTION 7 OTHER INFORMATION SERVICES

Introduction 1
USDA State Rural Development Offices 1
National and International organizations 5
Trade Journals and Newsletters 5

SECTION 8 GREENHOUSE CASE STUDIES

SECTION 9 GEO-HEAT CENTER QUARTERLY BULLETIN ARTICLES

SECTION 10 FARM BILL INFORMATION

 GEOTHERMAL GREENHOUSE INFORMATION PACKAGE

INTRODUCTION

This package is intended to provide a foundation of background information for persons

interested in developing a geothermal greenhouse. The material is divided into ten sections
covering issues of crop culture and prices, building and operating a greenhouse, heating system
design, listing of vendors, USDA extension offices, trade organizations and periodicals, case
studies and bulletin articles on greenhouse operations and several templates for applying for the
Farm Bill.

Section 1 Crop Market Prices contains recent wholesale price information for some typical
vegetable and flower crops grown in greenhouses plus seasonal variations for some crop are also
included. Sources where to find the current price information is also provided at the end of the
section.

Section 2 Building and Operating a Greenhouse includes information to help with the
planning of a greenhouse operation.

Section 3 Crop Culture Information provides abbreviated culture information for some
typical vegetable and flower crops. Such issues as temperature requirements, CO2, lighting and
disease are covered. An extensive list of additional information sources is provided at the end of
the section.

Section 4 Greenhouse Heating Systems section consist the Chapter 14 Greenhouses from
the Geothermal Direct Use Engineering and Design Guidebook. It covers the design and
performance of various heating equipment commonly used in geothermal greenhouses. The
topic of peaking with conventional fuel is also covered.

Section 5 Greenhouse Heating Equipment Selection Spreadsheet is the supporting

information and documentation for a spreadsheet based on Section 4. Included are: screenshots
covering the selection and cost of seven types of geothermal greenhouse heating systems and the
cell entries. This material is intended for the use by engineers and those familiar with the design
of heating systems.

Section 6 Vendor Information provides a list of vendors for components of geothermal

systems, greenhouse structures, and equipment.

Section 7 Other Information Services provides contact information for the Farm Bill state
representative in the USDA State Rural Development Offices, National and International
Organizations, and Trade Journals and Newsletters.

Section 8 Greenhouse Case Studies includes several case studies and a feasibility study
using geothermal in greenhouses.
Section 9 Geo-Heat Center Greenhouse Quarterly Bulletins section includes several Geo-
Heat Center bulletin articles in their entirety, plus webpage addresses to all the bulletin articles
on greenhouses that are available on our website in PDF format.

Section 10 Farm Bill Information includes two templates that were developed in 2006 to help
with the Farm Bill application. One is for the direct-use of geothermal and the second one is for
a geothermal heat pump application.
 Section 1
CROP MARKET PRICES

INTRODUCTION

This section contains historical crop prices for selected vegetables and floriculture that are
commonly grown in greenhouses. This section also includes sources where to obtain more in
depth information.

VEGETABLES

The vegetable prices in Table 1 were taken from the report Vegetables and Melons Outlook,
2007 by USDA and represents the season average price in $/100 pounds ($/cwt) paid at
wholesale to the growers.

Table 1. Vegetable Season Average Price, 2003-2006.

Season Average Price
$/cwt
Vegetable 2003 2004 2005 2006
Tomatoes 37.40 37.60 41.80 43.30
Bell Peppers 30.70 31.50 33.30 34.00
Head Lettuce 18.10 16.90 15.50 16.60
Note: cwt a unit of measure equal to 100 pounds

Tables 2 and 3 show the breakdown of the prices of tomatoes and head lettuce on a month-by-
month basis respectively.

Table 2. Monthly Price Paid to Growers for Tomatoes, 2002-2005.

Year
Month 2002 2003 2004 2005
January 38.2 50.90 24.7 15.4
February 28 31.70 32.3 40.90
March 41.7 55.6 41 40.7
April 34.3 30 44.2 65.10
May 29.2 23.7 32.2 49.4
June 32.7 45.7 21.1 40
July 28.3 36.6 22.5 28
August 25.6 40 35.8 26.1
September 23.5 33 37.3 46.1
October 28.2 31 70.8 37.3
November 43.9 31.8 119 36.5
December 53.2 32.1 n/a n/a

1
Table 3. Monthly Price Paid to Growers for Head Lettuce, 2002-2005.
Year
Month 2002 2003 2004 2005
January 25.9 11 16 11.5
Febuary 44.2 11.8 19.7 11.7
March 87.3 10.4 10.5 27.9
April 14.1 12.5 14.8 30.1
May 10.2 21.2 10.5 13.9
June 10.6 32.2 13.3 17.3
July 11.3 11.9 10.7 11
August 14.6 21.5 17.1 13.5
September 14.3 23.9 15.2 12.7
October 13.5 26.3 24.1 12.4
November 10.7 43.6 14.1 9.81
December 10.1 26.2 13.6 16.6

The wholesale price for tomatoes seems to stay constant throughout the year except for a spike in
November 2004, and there were no data reported for December 2004 as can be seen in Figure 1.
The wholesale price paid to growers for head lettuce also remained constant, but there was a
peak from February to March of 2002 as shown in Figure 2. This could have been the result of
adverse weather conditions. Head lettuce can be grown in about 35 days with a hydroponic
system so the market can recover quickly.

Tomatoes
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec

Month
2002 2003 2004 2005

Figure 1. Monthly price paid to growers for tomatoes, 2002-2005.

2
 Head Lettuce
100

80

60

40

20

0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec

Month
2002 2003 2004 2005

Figure 2. Monthly price paid to growers for head lettuce, 2002-2005.

FLORICULTURE

The floriculture prices in Table 4 were taken from the following publications Floriculture
Crops 2004 Summary and Floriculture Crops 2006 Summary by USDA. They represent
the average prices paid at wholesale to the grower. These summaries are completed by the
National Agriculture Statistics Service (NASS), who compile the information from interviews of
all known growers of floriculture in 36 states. To be eligible for the survey, the growers had to
have annual gross sales of all floriculture crops exceeding $100,000.

Depending on your area, the price paid at wholesale can vary significantly. An example is the
2006 summary mentioned above where growers in NY were paid $0.742/stem and in MN were
paid $0.772/stem for roses, whereas the average was only $0.391/stem.

Table 4. Floriculture wholesale Prices, 2003-2006.

Floriculture Wholesale prices

2003 2004 2005 2006
Carnations, Standard $/stem 0.176 0.182 0.203 0.192
Chrysanthemums, Pompon $/bunch 1.30 1.33 1.40 1.40
Roses, All $/stem 0.381 0.398 0.391 0.376
African Violets, Potted <5 inch $/pot 1.18 1.17 1.16 1.19
African Violets, Potted >5 inch $/pot 2.33 2.38 2.33 1.95
Chrysanthemums, Potted <5 inch $/pot 1.78 1.76 1.75 1.56
Chrysanthemums, Potted >5 inch $/pot 3.01 3.06 3.23 3.13
Easter Lilies, Potted, >5 inch $/pot 4.19 4.15 4.25 4.16
Poinsettias, Potted <5 inch $/pot 1.91 1.94 2.04 1.94
Poinsettias, Potted >5 inch $/pot 4.54 4.57 4.60 4.64
Geraniums from Seed, Potted, <5 inch $/flat 0.86 0.90 0.88 0.82
Geraniums from Seed, Potted, >5 inch $/flat 2.05 2.15 2.62 2.19

3
MORE INFORMATION

There are numerous websites where you can find information on past prices, current markets and
the outlook for certain crops. The ones that are the most helpful are listed below.

United States Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service

http://www.ers.usda.gov/

This website has of information such as the outlook reports for certain crops like vegetables and
melons. Below is the abstract from the Vegetable and Melons Situation and Outlook
Yearbook by Gary Lucier and Alberto Jerardo, July 26, 2007 which can be downloaded from
the following webpage.
http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/vgs/2007/07JulYearbook/VGS2007.pdf

U.S. production of all vegetables, potatoes, melons, and pulse crops increased less than 1 percent in
calendar year 2006. Although fresh and processed imports of these crops were also higher,
inventories of processed vegetables coming into the year were lower. As a result, total supplies
available for domestic consumption and export were down 1 percent to about 171 billion pounds in
2006. Lower supplies and higher energy costs pushed retail prices for all fresh and processed fruits
and vegetables 5 percent above a year earlierthe greatest year-to-year increase since 1998.
Because of the reduced supplies and a small gain in export volume, per capita net domestic use
(disappearance) of all vegetables, potatoes, melons, and pulse crops declined 3 percent to 428
pounds (freshweight basis) in 2006. Canning vegetables, particularly tomato products, accounted
for the majority of the decline in domestic vegetable use in 2006. On a fresh-equivalent basis, per
capita disappearance of vegetables for processing (including potatoes and mushrooms) declined 10
percent to about 93 pounds led by a 12-percent reduction in processing tomato use. The decline in
tomato use may have been an aberration caused by sharply higher wholesale tomato product prices
during the second half of 2006, which slowed demand and prevented stocks from being drawn
below year-earlier levels. Tomatoes accounted for about two-thirds of 2006 canning vegetable use.
Fresh-market vegetable consumption (including melons, potatoes, sweet potatoes, and mushrooms)
totaled about 222 poundsdown less than 1 percent from a year earlier. Fresh-market per capita
use increased for commodities such as cauliflower, garlic, snap beans, cabbage, and bell peppers,
and declined for spinach, head lettuce, onions, pumpkins, and celery. The U.S. vegetable and
melon trade deficit widened in 2006 as the value of imports increased more than the value of
vegetable and melon exports. In 2006, about 16 percent of all the vegetables and melons consumed
domestically was imported, with 12 percent of potatoes and potato products being sourced from
other nations, compared with 6 percent a decade earlier.

USDA Economics and Statistics and Market Information System (ESMIS)

http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/MannUsda/homepage.do

The USDA Economics, Statistics and Market Information System (ESMIS) is a collaborative
project between Albert R. Mann Library at Cornell University and several agencies of the U.S.
Department of Agriculture.

National Agricultural Statistics Service - USDA

http://www.nass.usda.gov/

4
REFERENCES

Lucier, Gary and Alberto Jerardo, 2006. Vegetable and Melons Situation and Outlook
Yearbook VGS-2007, Electronic Outlook Report from the Economic Research Service.
http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/vgs/2007/07JulYearbook/VGS2007.pdf

National Agriculture Statistics Service, 2007. Floriculture Crops 2006 Summary, United
States Department of Agriculture.
http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/current/FlorCrop/FlorCrop-07-26-2007.pdf

National Agriculture Statistics Service, 2005. Floriculture Crops 2004 Summary, United
States Department of Agriculture.
http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/nass/FlorCrop//2000s/2005/FlorCrop-04-26-2005.pdf

5
 Section 2
BUILDING AND OPERATING A GREENHOUSE

INTRODUCTION

Commercial greenhouses offer investment and career possibilities for many firms and
individuals. Typical barriers to entry into the industry are relatively low, and net investment
levels are not prohibitive. The industry is also highly fragmented, without any dominant leaders
in terms of size or net sales. Markets appear to be plentiful throughout the nation, and
metropolitan markets are readily served from outlying rural areas.

A large percentage of small businesses fail within the first two years and one of the question you
need to ask yourself is Would owning your own greenhouse business be right for you? Some
of the most important things to consider are:

Are you willing to work long hours and often seven days a week? - Greenhouse plants
must have attention everyday and during some seasons the work can be over 40 hours a
week.

Are you a good planner? - Need to plan when to plant and harvest the crops and those
unforeseen problems like the crops are not ready to be harvested.

Do you have the appropriate knowledge and experience? Have you grown crops
commercially or had a garden? - If you have limited experience it might be better to
work for a greenhouse operation and gain some experience before starting your own or
hire component people where you have limited experience.

There are some items that need to be thought about before you plan and build a
greenhouse. These items will have an affect on location, type and size of the greenhouse.
You should start by thinking about the items listed below among other things.

Now that you made the decision to own a greenhouse business there are so many other factors to
consider. Here are just a few of the items you need to think about before you can get together a
plan.

Crops to be grown Will you grow vegetables or flowers?

The growing period Will the operation be all year long or seasonally?

Growing media and system Will you use hydroponics, soil or other medium? Are you
going to uses benches or the floor?

Annual production How much can you produce?

1
 Type of heating / cooling system What type of heating equipment will you use (gas,
propane, geothermal). Will the system be forced air?

Marketing system Which type of business would work best for you retail, wholesale
or both?

Type of greenhouse Will you use a quonset or gable style greenhouse?

Do you have a market for your product?

How will you transport your product to market?

SOUTHWEST TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT INSTITUTE

Southwest Technology Development Institute of New Mexico State University completed a

study in 1990, regarding comparative performance for several greenhouse crop productions. The
purpose of the studies was to compile a consistent, unbiased comparison of commercial
greenhouse costs and the variables affecting those costs. In the study, a hypothetical operation
was placed in 11 geographical regions throughout the U.S. The greenhouse was assumed to be
four acres and the facilities would use current technologies. Estimates and assumptions were
developed for the following items: greenhouse capital costs, economic factors, utility costs, cash
flow and operating costs.

Greenhouse structure capital costs varied with location with the northern climates having
increased costs to reflect the need for additional thermal curtains. In the west and southwest,
evaporative cooling systems were considered. Some of the other variations in prices can be
affected by the cost of materials and labor. The total greenhouse costs (includes greenhouse and
operating equipment) ranged from $11.34 - 14.24/ft2 of greenhouse, with an average price of
$12.65/ft2 of greenhouse. The construction costs alone were in the $7.30 - $8.05/ft2 range with
an average of $7.44/ft2. Land costs are a significant portion of the total capital investment.

The economic model created was intended to reflect, as accurately as possible, the financial
conditions a grower might encounter when establishing and operating a new venture. Some
important factors to consider: state tax, workers compensation rate, labor wage rate, and
property tax rate which will affect an operating budget. Electricity, natural gas and water rates
can also vary greatly across the nation. Annual water consumption can be assumes to be
approximately five million gallons per acre per year. Labor costs dominate production costs.
Utility costs do not appear to be a significant factor, being generally less than 15% of the total
budget. Selling price is too varied between seasons and regions to be accurately modeled.

Depending on the region, the operating budget distribution could look like this:

Labor 40-45%
Plants, supplies and materials 16-25%
Utilities (heating, lights, and water use) 6-16%

2
 Loan payment 17-19%
Other(miscellaneous) 8-10%

Transportation of the product is an important consideration for the grower as transportation costs
can greatly affect the final selling price of the product and the growers competitive position in
various markets. For example, potted plants are among the most expensive greenhouse product
to ship.

Because production is fixed, annual revenue is also similarly fixed. Bloom prices do not change
dramatically, and no single producer within a region is able to receive substantially higher prices
than another producer. Therefore, the opportunity for increased profitability comes from the
lowering of operating costs. The price for roses is higher the further one travels east in the US.
Two factors that can account for the price differences: demand is higher in the east, raising the
price: and supply is more plentiful in the west, lowering the price.

A new firm should carefully evaluate individual sites on a case-by-case basis before selecting a
location. A primary consideration is that high levels of quality bloom production are absolutely
required, and secondly, the need for a skilled labor force. Another issue that will constrain
growth of the industry will continue to be the import of cut-flowers. Be sure you know where
you will sell your product BEFORE you plant. You have to have a market for your product;
otherwise, when you are ready to harvest, you might not have anybody to sell to.

MORE INFORMATION

There is quite a lot of information on greenhouses and greenhouse operations. Some are easy to
find some are not. Links are included below to some that are more useful.

Starting a Greenhouse Business

http://www.aces.edu/pubs/docs/A/ANR-0691/

Selecting and Building a Commercial Greenhouse

http://www.umass.edu/umext/floriculture/fact_sheets/greenhouse_management/jb_building_gh.h
tm

Greenhouse Construction
http://www.wvu.edu/~agexten/hortcult/greenhou/grencons.htm

Horticulture & Gardening - West Virginia University Extension Service

http://www.wvu.edu/~agexten/hortcult/index.html

Product Mix: Determining My Winners and Losers

http://aggie-horticulture.tamu.edu/greenhouse/nursery/guides/econ/chopt.html

3
REFERENCES

Maier, B.; Falk, C. L. and W. D. Gorman, 1990. Comparative Analysis: Greenhouse

Cucumber Production. Final Draft Technical Report. Southwest Technology Development
Institute, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, NM.

Whittier, J. and C. L. Fischer, 1990. Comparative Performance Analysis: Commercial Cut-

Flower Rose Production. Southwest Technology Development Institute, New Mexico State
University, Las Cruces, NM.

Whittier, J.; Maier, B.; Fischer, C. and R. D. Berghage, 1990. Comparative Performance
Analysis: Commercial Potted Plant Production. Southwest Technology Development Institute,
New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, NM.

Starting a Greenhouse Business ANR-0691 Reviewed June 2006 downloaded 12/28/07

http://www.aces.edu/pubs/docs/A/ANR-0691

Selecting and Building a Commercial Greenhouse Fact Sheet downloaded 12/28/07

http://www.umass.edu/umext/floriculture/fact_sheets/greenhouse_management/jb_building.....

4
 Section 3
CROP CULTURE INFORMATION

INTRODUCTION

This section introduces the environmental parameters that can affect the growth of greenhouse
crops, basic cultural information for five greenhouse crops, and where to look for more
information. The five greenhouse crops presented in this section include:

Tomato,
Cucumber,
Hydroponic lettuce,
Carnation, and
Roses

The cultural information for each crop can include information concerning:

The temperature required for good plant growth,

Different varieties known to grow well in greenhouses,
When the crops should be planted, and
The known pests and diseases that can damage a crop.

ENVIRONMENTAL PARAMETERS

This information was summarized from the following publication: A Handbook for the
Production of CEA-grown Hydroponic Lettuce, 1995.

Some of the environmental parameters that can affect the growth in the greenhouse are: 1)
temperature, 2) relative humidity, 3) carbon dioxide, 4) lights - sunlight, 5) dissolved oxygen
(hydroponic systems), 6) pH, and 7) electrical conductivity (hydroponic systems). Careful
management of some/all of these parameters is important for all plant growth. A brief
explanation of what each one does and why it is important is listed below.

Temperature

The temperature of the greenhouse environment controls the rate of plant growth. Usually, as
the temperature increases, chemical processes proceed at faster rates. This process is regulated
by enzymes, which perform at their best within a narrow temperature range. If the temperature is
above or below this range, the activity of the enzymes starts to deteriorate. This will cause the
chemical process to slow down or stop, resulting in stress.

1
Relative Humidity

The transpiration rate of plants is influenced by the relative humidity (RH) of the greenhouse air.
A high relative humidity of greenhouse air causes less water to transpire from the plants, which
means the transport of nutrients from the roots to the leaves is lessened. High humidity can also
cause disease problems in some cases like mold.

Carbon Dioxide (CO2)

The amount of photosynthesis (growth) of plants is directly influenced by the concentration of

CO2 in the greenhouse air. Normal concentration of CO2 in the outside air is 350 ppm. On a
bright day, the CO2 concentration can be depleted to 100 ppm in a closed greenhouse. This will
reduce the rate of photosynthesis. Increasing the CO2 concentration of the greenhouse air can
also speed growth.

Lights

Photosynthetically active radiation (PAR) is the light which is useful to plants for the process of
photosynthesis. Measurement of PAR gives an indication of the possible amount of photosyn-
thesis and growth being performed by the plant. Artificial (supplemental) lighting may be
required in some climates.

Dissolved Oxygen

For hydroponic systems. Dissolved oxygen in the ponds nutrient solution influences the process
of respiration. The absence of oxygen in the nutrient solution will stop the process and seriously
damage and kill the plant.

pH

The pH of a solution is a measure of the number of hydrogen ions or if the fluid is acidic (<7) or
basic (>7). The pH of a solution is important because it controls the availability of the fertilizer
salts.

Electrical Conductivity

For hydroponic systems. Electrical conductivity measures the amount of dissolved salts in a
solution.

TOMATOES

This information was summarized from the following publications: Commercial Greenhouse
Production Tomatoes, 1995; and Greenhouse Tomato, 1995.

2
Tomatoes are the most common greenhouse vegetable crop. There are some claims by
greenhouse growers that 30 or more pounds of marketable fruit can be expected per plant (or
plant space) per year. Such production is only possible using quality facilities and cultural
practices. Production of about 20 to 25 pounds would be more realistic, especially in western
Oregon. Tomatoes can be grown in a one-crop system (December-to-December) or a two-crop
system (August-to-December and January-to-June). In a one-crop system, the crop is started in
January and harvest is usually from March through November. The two-crop system is at less
risk from crop pests, allows fruit set and harvest when environmental conditions are best, and
competition from outdoor productions at its lowest.

Some tomato varieties grown commercially are Jumbo, Tropic, Laura, Caruso, Dombello,
Concreto, Perfecto, Dombita, Belmondo, Boa, Trend and Capello. Tomatoes for the US market
must be of a large size. Many European varieties are not large enough. It is very important to
know your market requirements concerning fruit color, size, and shape before selecting the
varieties to use. Variety selection should be made to fit light intensity, fertility and disease
resistance requirements. Always test a variety in the season it will be grown before committing
to it. Fruits over 6 ounces are preferred, with fruited in the 4-6 ounces marketable, and less than
4 ounces considered small.

Plants have commonly been grown in well-fertilized, well-drained soil (ground-bed production).
The system has been largely replaced by a soil-less culture system. Soil-less culture provides the
plants with nutrients and anchors by a totally artificial means. The need for soil sterilization, by
steam or chemicals, is eliminated which is a major advantage of a soil-less culture. Soil-less
culture is not as forgiving of mistakes and is more demanding. Good nutrient media composition
and nutrient balance through the entire crop cycle is mandatory.

There are two major soil-less culture systems used: closed system hydroponics--the nutrients are
recirculated, and open-system hydroponics or bag culture--new nutrient solution is constantly
provided to plants and the excess nutrient solution is not collected and recirculated.

Greenhouse tomatoes are always grown from transplants. A special part of the greenhouse
should be used to grow the transplants. It can be either a separate greenhouse or an area divided
from the main area, so the temperature can be accurately maintained. The spacing of the plants
after transplanting should be 4.5 to 5 square feet per plant under western Oregon conditions; but,
3.5 to 4 square feet is the norm. Select a soil that is rich, loamy, well drained and high in organic
material and preferably with a clay base, and a soil pH of 6.5 to 6.8.

The following schedule is a guideline for a typical two crop system. The schedule may change
some depending on your location.

Spring Fall
Plant seeds in plant bed (or flat) Nov. 20 - Dec 5 June 10 - 20
Transplant seedlings in pot Dec. 1 -5 June 20 - July 5
Set plants in greenhouse Jan 15 -31 Aug 1 - 15
Spray plants for diseases Every 7 - 10 days Every 7 - 10 days
Start vibrating plants for pollination Mar 1 - 15 Sept. 1 - 15

3
Side dress with nitrogen and potash 4 - 6 times 4 - 6 times
Start harvesting April 15 - 30 Oct 15 - 30
End harvesting and cleanup house July 1 - 15 Dec 15 31

Accurate temperature, humidity, and carbon dioxide control is important. Temperature

requirements for major greenhouse vegetable differ. In general, when light intensities are low
cooler temperatures are used. For tomatoes, the daytime temperature should be from 70 to 75oF,
at night the temperature should be a minimum of 62 to 65oF. When the temperature exceeds 85
to 90oF, cooling equipment should be used to prevent fruit set failure and for proper red coloring
development.

The normal concentration of carbon dioxide in the air is 300 parts per million. If carbon dioxide
levels are depleted in the greenhouse environment, plant growth may be limited. Addition of
carbon dioxide to greenhouses has been demonstrated to improve vegetable yields.
Concentrations of carbon dioxide should be adjusted for light intensity and growth stage as
follows:

Bright, sunny weather 1000 ppm

Cloudy weather 750 ppm
Young plants 700 ppm
During moderate ventilation 350 ppm

Under open-field conditions, tomatoes are self pollinating. Flowers need to be agitated
mechanically, or fruits need to be set using plant chemical hormones that are sprayed on flower
clusters on a regular basis, under greenhouse conditions. There are few varieties that are
parthencarpic (need no pollination and are seedless), and these are generally small-to-medium
sized.

Assuming a 2-to-3 month harvest period for a fall crop which ends in late-December, a yield of
about 8 pounds of fruit per plant is possible (0.8 lb/plant/week is considered good). With a 4-
month harvest period from a spring crop, approximately 12-15 pounds can be realized. The yield
from a single crop per year system can produce about 25-27 lb/plant (based on 0.5-0.75
lb/plant/week) when the harvest begins about mid-October and ends in July of the following
year. The lower output would be due to adverse winter conditions (cloudiness and low-light
intensity). Generally, growing a fall crop is less profitable due to low-light intensity, poor fruit
set, poor fruit quality, and high-fuel costs.

Some non-pathogenic fruit disorders are: bloom-end rot, gray wall, blotchy ripening, solar
yellowing, roughness and scars, and fruit cracks.

The USDA has grade standards for fresh tomatoes and is recognized by 6 official designations.
They are:

1. Green - the surface is completely green,

2. Breakers - a definite break in color from green to tannish-yellow, pink or red on no more
than 10% of the surface,

4
3. Turning - more than 10% but less than 30% of the surface, in the aggregate, shows
change as in 2) above,
4. Pink - more than 30% but less than 60% shows pink or red color,
5. Light red - more than 60% of aggregate surface is reddish pink or red provide that not
more than 90% is red, and
6. Red - more than 90% of surface in the aggregate show red color.

CUCUMBERS

This information was summarized from the following publications: Commercial Greenhouse
Production Cucumbers, 1995, and Greenhouse Cucumbers, 1995.

Cucumbers grow more rapidly than tomatoes and produce earlier. European variety cucumbers
are a popular greenhouse crop, producing fruits that weigh about one pound and grow 12 to 14
inches long. In contrast to American cucumbers, European varieties set and develop fruit
parthenocarpically (without pollination) resulting in fruits that are seedless. They require no bees
for pollination and produce higher yields. Before production, you should determine if a suitable
market is available in your area; because, they are distinctly different from conventional slicing
cucumbers. Since this type is so different from conventional cucumbers, some market can be
found almost all the year round.

Some cucumber varieties grown commercially are: Mustang, Jessica, Optima, and Flamingo
(mildew tolerant), Corona, Sandra, Fidelio (powdery mildew tolerant), Fertile, factum,
Femfrance, LaReine, Pepinex69, Pepinova, Pandorex, and Santo. Toska70 is a high-yield, high-
quality seedless cucumber cultivar which is not all-female, but doesnt require bees. Always test
a variety in the season it will grow before committing to it.

Cucumbers require higher temperatures than tomatoes so they are generally grown as a spring or
early summer crop. Cucumbers are grown as a two- or three-crop system a year. The yields for
the two-crop systems would be the same but with a three-crop system the fruit quality is usually
better. Light sandy-loam soils are preferable. Growing in bag culture or rockwool is generally
more costly than growing in soil and control of the nutritional program is more critical. Use
three week old plants that are free of disease and insect infestations when transplanting to the
greenhouse.

Accurate temperature, humidity, and carbon dioxide are important. The temperature
requirements for cucumbers during the day are 75 to 77oF and for night at 70oF until first
picking. After picking has started, the nighttime temperature may be reduced by 2o per night
until a temperature of 63oF is meet, but only temporarily for 2 to 3 days to stimulate growth.
Exceeding the maximum temperatures temporarily can be used to cause some flower abortion
and maintain the fruit-vine balance. In general, cooler temperatures are used when light
intensities are low.

Carbon dioxide is usually present in the atmosphere at a concentration of 300 ppm. For best
results, concentrations of 1,000 to 1,500 ppm in a greenhouse atmosphere should be maintained.

5
Increases of 20 to 40 percent in yield have been reported for various vegetables, when carbon
dioxide levels were increased.

Six-to-nine square feet of space per plant is recommended depending on the variety and cropping
system. Plants need to establish a strong root system and vegetable stem before fruit is allowed
to set. Until the plant has 8-10 leaf nodes, all lateral branches, flowers, and tendrils should be
removed (umbrella method). After 8-10 leaf nodes have developed, allow one female flower to
set at each subsequent node.

Greenhouse cucumbers grow very quickly and should never lack water or nutrients. Maintain an
adequate supply of water to plant roots. Young plants (mid-winter) in the greenhouse may need
to be watered only once every 10 to 14 days. The same plants (mid-summer) may need water
daily, requiring an estimated 1/4 to 3/4 gallon per plant per day, depending on its size. During
crop growth, the most important element needed is nitrogen.

There are several diseases that can be very serious for European cucumbers which include
cucumber and watermelon mosaic, gray mold, powdery mildew and rootknot nematodes. In
addition to diseases, the grower must be aware of insects too. Some troublesome pests are the
white fly, serpentine leaf miner, and two-spotted mite.

Proper control of plant disease is critical in greenhouse environments; where, high temperatures
and humidity are ideal for diseases to develop. Insect and nematode infestation can become
rampant under the confined greenhouse conditions. Control most fungus and virus diseases with
fungicides, proper sanitation and sterilization of soils, growth media, and equipment. Powdery
mildew (Erysiphe) is a common fungus disease on cucumbers; chemical controls are available.
Early control of white fly, aphid, and spider mite infestation is important. Nematodes may
become a problem in either soil or hydroponic culture. Sterilization of soil or hydroponic media
is used as a preventative measure.

The most desirable fruits are 11 inches or longer and average 3/4 to 1 pound. During peak
production, fruits need to be removed three or four times a week. A healthy plant should
produce 24 to 30 marketable fruits.

HYDROPONIC LETTUCE

This information was summarized from the following publication: A Handbook for the
Production of CEA-Grown Hydroponic Lettuce, 1995.

The process discussed below is for a production-intensive program, where the lighting and
electrical power usage is high. Computer technology is an integral part of this type of production
of hydroponic lettuce. For the production of 1000 heads (5 ounce) per day, a 7100 ft2 growing
area is required, which includes spacing of plants at day 21, from 9 plants/ft2 to 3.5 plants/ft2. To
first grow leaf lettuce hydroponically, the growing process is broken into two different areas: the
germination area and the pond area. In the germination area, the seeds are started and grown for

6
11 days; after 11 days they are transplanted to the pond area. The pond area is where the lettuce
is grown until harvested on the 35th day. Below are the steps for a 5-ounce head of leaf lettuce.

Germination

The germination area is where lettuce is grown for the first 11 days. The seedlings develop best
under constant lighting conditions with specific closely controlled temperature, relative
humidity, carbon dioxide, and irrigation.

The starting temperature is maintained at 68oF. After planting, the seeds should be covered with
plastic humidity cover to ensure high relative humidity. After one day, the temperature is raised
to 77oC. On the second day after planting, the humidity cover is removed. The high humidity
for the first two days is to ensure the seeds do not desiccate. The third and fourth days are for the
removal of double seedlings to ensure a uniform crop. It is critical to have consistent
environmental conditions and consistent plant growth during this stage. Day five is reserved for
selecting seedlings based on the size and expansion of their first true leaf (~ 1 cm diameter).
Those unacceptable should be discarded. Expect a 20-30 percent disposal. This is a vital
process for the uniformity of the crop. After the fifth day, the seedlings now require watering
more frequently due to their growth. Flooding for the sub-irrigation system should take place
four times a day for 15 minutes.

Transplanting

The 11th day, the roots of the seedlings has grown through the bottom of the plug tray. The
seedlings should now be transplanted to the pond area. When transplanting the seedlings try to
avoid damaging the exposed roots. The seedling plugs float in the pond of styrofoam floaters,
each plug is inserted into a pre-cut, square, 0.3 in2 in area, centered on a 15.5 in2 area styrofoam
floater. The floaters with seedlings are then placed and positioned in the pond.

Pond Area

Controlling the environment within the pond area is important, due to the intensity of the
program. The temperature controls the rate of plant growth. The set points for the temperature
should be 75oF for daytime and 65oF for nights. Relative humidity influences the transpiration
rate of plants. High relative humidity of the air causes less water to transpire which causes less
transport of nutrients from the roots to the leaves. The set points for relative humidity should be
from 30% to 70%. CO2 concentration influences the amount of photosynthesis (growth) of
plants and concentrations of 1000-1500 ppm can speed growth. The environmental set points for
CO2 concentrations should be 1000 ppm for light hours and 350 ppm for dark hours. The
measurement of dissolved oxygen indicates the amount of oxygen available in the pond nutrient
solution for the roots to use in respiration. Lettuce grows satisfactorily at a level of 4 ppm, but
the level should usually be maintained at 8 ppm. The set point for the dissolved oxygen is 4
ppm. The pH of the nutrient solution is a measurement of the number of hydrogen ions and a pH
of 5.8 is considered optimum for the described growing system. A range of 5.6 - 6.0 for the pH
is acceptable; therefore, the set points should be between 5.6 to 6.0. Electrical conductivity

7
measures the amount of dissolved salts in a solution, and for optimum production, the set points
should be from 2920 to 3180 micromho/in.

With the environment controls in place, the seedlings are placed in the pond area where they will
stay until harvested. On day 18 the leaves will have expanded to cover much of the styrofoam
floaters and a head of lettuce will weigh approximately 0.4 oz. On the 21st, day the leaves will
have grown to a point where they will interfere with the growth of neighboring plants. At this
time the plants should be respaced, which will allow adequate space for new growth. The new
spacing should be changed from 9 plants/ft2 to 3.5 plants/ft2, thereby allowing for sufficient
lighting and spacing for growth until harvested on the 35th day.. Heads will weigh
approximately 0.75 oz. On days 25 and 32, the individual lettuce plants will weigh
approximately 1.7 and 4 oz respectively.

Harvesting

The 35th day is reserved for harvesting, at which time the head of lettuce should weigh
approximately 5 oz. The consistent growing conditions and proper production scheduling for
hydroponic lettuce production ensures the crop size will be uniform in size and quality.

CARNATIONS, DIANTHUS CARYOPHYLLUS L.

This information was summarized from the following publications: Ball RedBook -
Greenhouse Growing, 1985, and Growers Guide - Carnations, 1996.

The carnation is most famous for its use as a cut flower in the florist trade. The carnation is a
member of the Caryophyllaceae or pink family. White is still the most popular color, followed
by various shades of pink. Carnations are semi-hardy perennials treated as annuals. They grow
best in well-drained soil exposed to full sun and cool conditions. The lightly-to-heavily fragrant
blooms are excellent for cut flowers and bedding plants, and the miniature types can be used in
pot culture. Foliage is slightly-to-light green, linear, and borne on stiff erect stems. Flowers are
2 to 2.5 inches in diameter, usually fully-double, and exhibit a wide range of colors.

Carnations are divided by height into two classes: miniature types especially suited to container
production--height range is 10 to 14 inch, and tall types best for growing in the garden range--
height range 15 to 24 inch.

Some carnation varieties are:

Standard Color
Scania Red
Improved White Sim White
Nora Dark Pink
Baranna Soana Light Pink
Peters New Pink Sim Light Pink

8
 Miniatures Color
White Elegance White
Dads Crimson Red
Star Five Red
Tinkerbell Pink
Barbi Pink
Goldilocks Yellow
Elegance Pink/White Novelty
Orange Picotee Orange Novelty

Carnations grown as bedding plants are propagated from seed; although, they can be propagated
from cuttings. The black seeds are flattened, circular, slightly twisted, and are about 0.1 in. in
diameter. There are approximately 14,000 seeds per ounce.

Carnation seeds are readily planted with an automatic seeder or can be sown by hand. The
germination medium must be well drained and free of pathogens to prevent disease problems,
and should be throughly moistened before receiving the seeds. The pH of the soil should be
between 5.5 to 6.5. The seeds are sown on the soil surface and covered with 0.12 inches of fine
vermiculite to retain moisture. After sowing, the seed trays should be covered with clear
polyethylene to retain the moisture. The optimum germination temperature is 70oF.

Germination begins in 8 to 10 days, but may take as long as two to three weeks. After
germination the cover is removed and the temperature is lowered to 60oF until transplanting.
Make sure the seedlings are not water stressed during this period. The seedlings will benefit
from one or two light feedings with a well balanced fertilizer applied at 50 to 100 ppm nitrogen.

Transplanting takes place when the plant has attained two to four true leaves, this takes about
one to four weeks. The pH of the soil should be between 5.5 and 6.5 when the plants are
transplanted. A soil test should be performed beforehand so adjustments can be made if
necessary. The carnations can be grown in 4-in pots or in flats with 48 to 72 plants per flat. The
carnations should be placed flat to flat in full sun and raised off the ground to prevent rooting
into the ground. Carnations grow best at cool temperatures. Upon transplanting, the plants
should be watered thoroughly and held at a temperature of 60oF for a day or two. After the two
days, the daytime setting should be 65oF and the nighttime setting should be 50 to 60oF. For
shorter plants, the daytime setting is 50 to 60oF and night setting at 65oF. Carnation standards
need disbudding and taping of the flower bud to prevent splits.

Some growers move the carnations outside, after they are well established and growing, to open
up greenhouse space for younger plants. The grower needs to protect the plants from freezing
temperatures and frost, if this procedure is used.

There are several plant problems which the grower must be aware of. Carnation root rot
(fusarium oxysporum) is a common and increasing problem among grower the world over. Also,
there are diseases which include leaf scorch - caused by high fluoride content in the water. Some
insects they shoul d be aware of are leaf miners, aphids, and spider mites. Carnations are also

9
susceptible to ozone injury which can be caused by improper ventilation of the heating
equipment.

ROSES

This information was summarized from the following publication: Ball RedBook - Greenhouse
Growing, 1985.

With the application of new technology in heat shields, high energy lighting, drip irrigation and
fertilizer application, high pressure mist for cooling and humidity control, and CO2 enrichment,
high quality roses can be produced in many areas.

Several varieties of cut roses are:

Hybrid Teas Color

Forever yours Red
Samantha (HID lights) Red
Golden Fantasie Yellow
Emblem Yellow
Bridal White White
Pink Sensation Pink
Sonia Pink

Sweethearts and Floribundas Color

Mary Devor Red
Sassy Red
Coed Yellow
Golden Garnette Yellow
Bridal Pink Pink
Junior bridesmaid Pink
Jack Frost White

The structure of the greenhouse needs to be one that will give full sunlight to all plants. There
should be no shading from other greenhouses, buildings or trees. The house should have 7-ft
gutters so the roses will not touch the glass when they are at their highest level of production.
Heating should be adequate to supply 60oF in the coldest weather and the source of heat should
be from the floor. Rose structures should supply warm humid atmospheres with high light
intensity during daytime and at night, a lower humidity with an even warm 60oF. The soil
temperature should be at 65oF for winter production.

The time for planting roses is usually between January 1 and June 15. It is generally believed a
better practice is to plant in January or February, and bring the plants into production in the early
summer. The timing for the harvesting of a rose crop is important too, for there is always an
increased demand for at holidays like Christmas, Valentines Day, Easter, and Mothers Day. To
meet the increased demand, enough of your crop needs to be pinched off prior to the holiday.

10
A very important part of rose production is rose cutting. Where you remove the rose from the
plant largely determines the ability of your plant to produce. The most common system of
cutting is to cut to the second 5-leaflet leaf on the new wood. This will assure you another rose
within 7 weeks (42-45 days) from this cut. Another method is to soft-pinch all breaks as they
appear and cut the roses back below the pinch. Roses should be cut twice a day to assure that
none will open on the plant and be lost. It is also important that benches be cut at the same time
every day since 1 or 2 hours will result in a lot of blasting. Roses can last 5 to 7 days under
refrigeration at a 32 - 35oF temperature, 80 percent humidity if cut at the right stage of
development. Sweetheart Roses and some hybrid teas can last over a week.

The rose plant requires a specific environment in order to control quality and productivity.
Controlling the temperature is a very important part of rose culture, especially on timing and
quality. The carbon dioxide levels should be maintained between 600 to 800 ppm. Weather can
have a very definite effect on the timing of roses. Cold and cloudy weather will slow the crop
down considerably; likewise, warm and balmy weather will speed it up. Rose buds should be the
size of a pea three weeks before the cut date.

The health of rose plants depends largely on the success in controlling diseases and insect pests.
The red spider must be controlled. The second most important pest is powdery mildew. Mildew
can ruin a rose crop unless checked. Watch for cold drafts from ventilation or broken glass
during the heating season. Avoid sudden drops in temperature.

FOR MORE INFORMATION

Aldrich, Robert A. and John W. Bartok, 1990. Greenhouse Engineering, Northeast Regional
Agricultural Engineering Service, Ithaca, NY, 203 p.

Armitage, Allan M., 1993. Specialty Cut Flowers. (ISBN 0-88192-225-0). Varsity Press
Inc./Timber Press Inc., Portland, OR.

Ball, Vic, 1991. Ball Red Book, 15th Edition. (ISBN 0-9626796-2-3). Ball Publishing,
Batavia, IL.

Bauerle, W. L., 1984. Bag Culture Productivity of Greenhouse Tomatoes. Special Circ. 108.
Columbus, OH.

Blom, T. J.; Straver, W. A. and F. J. Ingratta, 1984. Carbon Dioxide in Greenhouses. Fact
Sheet Order No. 84-026, AGDEX 290/27. Ministry of Agriculture and Food, Parliament Bldgs.,
Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

Blom, T. J.; et al., 1987. Water Quality for Greenhouse Crops. Fact Sheet Order No. 87-045,
AGDEX 290/15. Ministry of Agriculture and Food, Parliament Bldgs., Toronto, Ontario,
Canada.

11
Boodley, James W., 1981. The Commercial Greenhouse. (ISBN 0-8273-1718-2). Agriculture
Ser. Delmar, 568 pp.

Both, A. J., 1995. Dynamic Simulation of Supplemental Lighting for Greenhouse Hydroponic
Lettuce Production. Ph.D. Dissertation, Cornell University Libraries, Ithaca, NY, 172 p.

Carpenter, T. D., 1982. Analyzing and Managing Nutrition of Vegetables Grown in Upright
Polyethylene Bags. J. Plant Nut. 5:1-83-1089.

Cotter, D. J. and R. E. Gomez, 1992. Greenhouse Tomato Production Pointers, New Mexico
State University, Fact Sheet 400 H-11, 5 pp.

De Hertogh, August, (undated). Holland Bulb Forcers Guide, 4th Edition. The International
Flower-Bulb Centre, Hillegom, The Netherlands.

Ells, J. E.; Goldsberg, K. L. and W. M. Hartsberger, 1979. Greenhouse Tomatoes for

Commercial Growers. Cooperative Extension Service, Colorado State University, Fact sheet
7.606, 2 pp.

Eysinga, J. P. N.; Van, L. R. and K. W. Smilde, 1981. Nutritional Disorders in Greenhouse

Tomatoes, Cucumbers and Lettuce. Centre for Agricultural Pub. and Doc., Wageningen, The
Netherlands.

Fletcher, J. T., 1984. Diseases of Greenhouse Plants. (ISBN 1-883052-08-4). Longman

Group Ltd. Harlow, England.

Goto, E.; Both, A. J.; Albright, L. D.; Langhans, R. W. and A. R. Leeds, 1996. Effects of
Dissolved Oxygen Concentration on Lettuce Growth in Floating Hydroponics. Acta
Horticulture 440:205-210.

Goto, E.; Albright, L. D.; Langhans, R. W. and A. R. Leed, 1994. Plant Spacing Management
in Hydroponic Lettuce Production, ASAE Paper 944574. ASAE, 2950 Niles Road, St. Joseph,
MI 49085-9659, 13 p.

Growers Books, 1980. Cucumbers. Grower Guide No. 15, Grower Books, London.

Hochmuth, G., 1990. Greenhouse Vegetable Production Handbook. Volumes 1-3. Circulars
46-48. Florida Cooperative Extension Service, C. M. Hinton. (Minimal charge for each volume)

Hochmuth, G., 1993. Production of Florida Greenhouse Vegetables in Rockwool: Greenhouse

Design and Crop Management. Florida Cooperative Extension Service. Bulletin SP110, 24 pp.
(Minimal charge)

International Flower Bulb Centre. Information on Special Bulbs. International Flower Bulb
Centre (IBC). Hillegom, The Netherlands.

12
Jarvis, William R., 1992. Managing Diseases in Greenhouse Crops. (ISBN 0-89054-122-1).
APS Press, St. Paul, MN.

Johnson, H and G. Hickman, 1984. Greenhouse Cucumber Production. Publication No.

2775. Cooperative Extension, University of California, Berkeley, CA.

Lamont (Jr.), W. J. and C. W. Marr. Hydroponic Systems. Bulletin 11, Cooperative Extension
Service. Kansas State University.

Larson, Roy A., ed., 1980. Introduction to Floriculture, 2nd Edition. (ISBN 0-12-437650).
Academic Press, 607 p.

Laurie, Alex; et al., 1979. Commercial Flower Forcing, 8th Edition. (ISBN 0-07036633-0,
C). McGraw.

Liner, H. C. and A. A. Banadyga, 1974. Costs and Returns from Producing Greenhouse
Tomatoes in North Carolina. Circular 558. Agricultural Extension, North Carolina Sate
University, Raleigh, NC.

Lorenz, O. A. and D. A. Maynard, 1988. Knotts Handbook for Vegetable Growers, 3rd
Edition. Wiley & Interscience, New York, NY.

Mastalerz, John W., 1977. The Greenhouse Environment: The Effect of Environmental
Factors on Flower Crops. (ISBN 0-917328-44-2). Wiley, LC 77-6793.

Michigan State University, 1991. Commercial Potted Plant Manual. Michigan State
University, 245 pp.

Nau, Jim, 1993. Ball Culture Guide - The Encyclopedia of Seed Germination. Ball
Publishing, Batavia, IL.
Nelson, P. V., 1984. Greenhouse Operation Management. Reston Publishing Co., Inc.,
Reston, VA.

Northeast Regional Agricultural Engineering Service. Storage of Fruits, Vegetables, and

Floriculture Crops. Northeast Regional Agricultural Engineering Serv., Cornell University,
Ithaca, NY.

Salinger, John P., 1987. Commercial Flower Growing. (ISBN 0-409-70150-5 pbk).
Butterworths, Wellington, New Zealand, 269 pp.

Schiales, F. D., 1982. Greenhouse Production of Vegetable Plants. ARS-USDA.

Proceedings, Misc. Publ.. No. 1422, 4pp.

Schultheis, J. R. Greenhouse Tomato Production - The Soil System. North Carolina State
University, Horticulture Leaflet No. 32.

13
Scott, J. W., 1981. Influence of White Plastic Mulch on the Yield of Four Varieties of Spring
Crop Tomatoes. Greenhouse Vegetable Crops - 1981: A Summary of Research, Res. Circ.
264. OARDC, Wooster, OH, p. 3-4.

Sheldrake, R. Tomato Production in Bags. Bulletin No. TTB106. W. R. Grace & Co.,
Cambridge, MA.

Socalis, John N., 1993. Cut Flowers - Prolonging Freshness. (ISBN 0-9626796-7-4). Ball
Publishing, Batavia, IL, 110 p.

Straver, W. A., 1983. Growing European Seedless Cucumbers. Fact sheet, Order No. 83-006,
AGDEX 292/21, Ministry of Agriculture and Food, Parliament Bldgs., Toronto, Ontario,
Canada.

Stoner, A. K., 1971. Commercial Production of Greenhouse Tomatoes. Agriculture

Handbook No. 382. United States Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC.

Vaughan, Mary Jane, 1988. The Complete Book of Cut Flower Care. (ISBN 0-88192-112-2).
Timber Press, Portland, OR, 145 p.

Wilcox, G. E., 1979. European Greenhouse Cucumber Production in Nutrient Film Systems.
Cooperative Extension Service, Purdue University, Fact Sheet, HO-168, 4 pp. (Minimal charge)

Wilcox, G. E., 1979. Fertilizer Schedule for Greenhouse Tomatoes, Cooperative Extension
Service, Purdue University, Fact Sheet HO-144. 3 pp. (Minimal charge)

Wilcox, G. E., 1987. Growing Greenhouse Tomatoes in the Nutrient Film Hydroponic
System. Cooperative Extension Service, Purdue University, Fact Sheet CIS 636, 4 pp.
(Minimal charge)

REEFERENCES

Ball, V., 1985. Ball RedBook - Greenhouse Growing. Reston Publishing Company, Inc.
Reston, VA.

College of Agricultural Sciences, Oregon State University, 1995. Greenhouse Cucumbers.

URL: http://www.orst.edu/Dept/NWREC/cuc-gh.html.

College of Agricultural Sciences, Oregon State University, 1995. Greenhouse Tomatoes.

URL: http://www.orst.edu/Dept/NWREC/tomatogh.html.

Controlled Environment Agriculture Program, Cornell University, 1995. CEA Hydroponic

Lettuce Production Handbook. URL: http://www.cals.cornell.edu/dept/flori/lettuce/index.html.

14
Cooperative Extension Service, Kansas State University, 1995. Commercial Greenhouse
Production Cucumbers. URL: http://www.oznet.ksa.edu/library/HORT2/MF2075.PDF.

Cooperative Extension Service, Kansas State University, 1995. Commercial Greenhouse

Production Tomatoes. URL: http://www.oznet.ksa.edu/library/HORT2/MF2074.PDF.

Michigan State University Extension, Michigan Sate University, 1996. Growers Guide -
Carnation. URL: http://www.msue.msu.edu/son/mod21/mod21c.htm.

15
 Section 4
GREENHOUSE HEATING SYSTEMS

INTRODUCTION

The following pages of this section are reprinted in its entirety from Chapter 14 Greenhouses
by Kevin Rafferty of the Geothermal Direct-Use Engineering and Design Guidebook published
by the Geo-Heat Center.
 CHAPTER 14
GREENHOUSES
Kevin D. Rafferty, P.E.
OIT Geo-Heat Center
Klamath Falls, OR 97601
14.1 INTRODUCTION
Greenhouse heating is one of the most common uses
of geothermal resources. Because of the significant heating
requirements of greenhouses and their ability to use very
low- temperature fluids, they are a natural application. The
evaluation of a particular greenhouse project involves
consideration of the structure heating requirements, and the
system to meet those requirements. This chapter is
intended to provide information on each of these areas.
14.2 GREENHOUSE CONSTRUCTION
In order to make an evaluation of geothermal heating
systems for greenhouses, it is first necessary to examine the
different heating requirements imposed by various
construction methods.
At one time, greenhouses were constructed exclusively
of cypress wood frames and single glass lites. Recent years
have seen substantial changes in construction techniques
and materials. In general, construction may be considered
to fall into one of the following four categories:
1. Glass
2. Plastic film
3. Fiberglass or similar rigid plastics
4. Combination of two and three.
All of the above are generally constructed of steel or
aluminum frames.
Glass greenhouses are the most expensive to construct
because of both the cost of the glazing material and the
requirement for a stronger framework to support the glass.
In many cases, fiberglass panels are employed on the side
and end walls of the structure. The building profile is
generally of peaked design, with 36 and 42 ft widths, and
lengths in 20 ft increments most common. This type of
greenhouse is preferred by growers whose plants require
superior light transmission qualities. In addition to offering
the highest light quality, the glass greenhouse also has the
poorest energy efficiency. Heating costs are high because
of the poor insulating quality of single glazing and the high
infiltration of cold air through the many "cracks" in the
construction. This issue of high transmission loss has been
addressed in recent years through the introduction of new,
double glazing panels for glass houses. However, because
of the expense of these panels and their effect upon light
transmission, most glass greenhouses remain single layer.
Plastic film greenhouses are the newest variation in
greenhouse construction techniques. This type of structure
is almost always of the arched roof or "quonset hut" design.
The roof can come all the way down to the ground or can be
fitted with side walls. The side walls, if employed, and end
walls are generally of fiberglass construction. Maintenance
requirements for the plastic film are high in that it generally
requires replacement on 3-year intervals or less, depending
on the quality of the material. Most plastic film houses
employ a double layer of film separated by air space. The
air space is maintained by a small blower that pressurizes
the volume between the layers. This double poly design is
a very energy efficient approach to greenhouse design.
Double poly not only reduces transmission losses (losses
through the walls and roof) by 30 to 40%, but also
substantially reduces infiltration (in leakage of cold air).
Although the plastic film tends to lose more heat than glass
through radiation, the net effect is a reduction in heating
requirements compared to glass construction. Infiltration is
reduced because the "cracks" present in other types of
construction are eliminated through the use of the con-
tinuous plastic film. As a result, there is less opportunity
for the cold outside air to penetrate the structure. The
superior energy efficiency of the film construction comes at
the price of reduced light transmission, however. As a
result, highly light sensitive crops cannot be grown in the
double-poly greenhouse as successfully as in other
constructions. These greenhouses are generally constructed
in 30 ft width, and 100 and 150 ft lengths.
Fiberglass greenhouses are similar in construction to
the glass houses described above. They are generally of
peaked roof design, but require less structural support as a
result of the lower weight of the fiber glass. Heat loss of
the fiberglass house is about the same as the glass house.
Although the fiberglass material has a lower conductivity
than glass, when considered in the overall building heat
loss, this has little effect.
14.3 HEATING REQUIREMENTS
In order to select a heating system for a greenhouse,
the first step is to determine the peak heating requirement
307
for the structure. Heat loss for a greenhouse is composed
of two components: (a) transmission loss through the walls
and roof, and (b) infiltration and ventilation losses caused
by the heating of cold outside air.
To evaluate transmission loss, the first step is to calcu-
late the surface area of the structure. This surface area
should be subdivided into the various materials employed,
i.e. square feet of double plastic, square feet of fiberglass,
etc.
For example, consider a fiberglass wall, double-poly
roof greenhouse 42 ft x 120 ft with 8 ft side walls (see
Figure 14.1).
After determining the total surface area (A) of the
various construction materials, this value is then combined
with a design temperature difference (DT) and a heat loss
factor (U) for each component, to calculate the total
transmission heat loss (q):
q = (A1 x DT x U1) + (A2 x DT x U2).
The design temperature difference is a function of two
values: (a) design inside temperature, and (b) design
outside temperature. The inside design value is simply the
temperature to be maintained inside the space (typical
values appear in Table 14.1 range). The design outdoor
temperature is not the coldest outdoor temperature re-
corded at the site. It is generally considered to be a
temperature that is valid for all but 22 h/y during the heating
season. Acceptable values for various locations are gen-
erally available from state energy offices or organizations
such as American Society of Heating, Refrigeration and Air
Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE, 1978).

Table 14.1 Temperature Requirements for Typical

Greenhouse Crops
_____________________________________________

Vegetables Day Night

Peppers 65-85 60-65
Tomato 70-75 62-65
Cucumber 75-77 70
Figure 14.1 Example greenhouse. Lettuce (hydroponic) 75 65
(Reduce temp. 2o when picking)
(During germination,
Determine the double poly area (roof only): humidity 30-70%)

A1 = arch width x greenhouse length Flowers

A1 = 44.5 ft x 120 ft Roses 60-62 62
A1 = 5,340 ft2 Poinsettias 70-80 64-72
Easter Lilies 60
Fiberglass area (side walls and end walls), Carnations 75 50
Side walls: Geraniums 70-80 (max)
Fuchsia 70 (min) 65
As = height x length x 2 (min)
As = 8 ft x 120 ft x 2 ______________________________________________
As = 1,920 ft2

End walls: For this example, assume a design outdoor temperature

of 0oF and a design indoor temperature of 60oF. This
Ae = 1,254 ft2 results in a design temperature difference (DT) of:

Total fiberglass area: DT = 60oF - 0oF

DT = 60oF.
A2 = As + Ae
A2 = 1,254 ft + 1,920 ft The final value in the transmission heat loss equation
A2 = 3,174 ft2. is the heat transfer coefficient (U). Acceptable values for
various materials are shown in Table 14.2.

308
Table 14.2 Glazing Material U Valuesa Table 14.4 Air Change Data for Various Glazing
______________________________________________ Materials
______________________________________________
Material Btu/h ft2 oF
Glass 1.10 Material Air Changes/h
Fiberglass 1.00 Single glass 2.5 to 3.5
Single poly 1.15 Double glass 1.0 to 1.5
Double poly 0.70 Fiberglass 2.0 to 3.0
_________________ Single poly 0.5 to 1.0
a. Roberts, 1985 Double poly 0.0 to 0.5
______________________________________________ Single poly w/low fiberglass sides 1.0 to 1.5
Double poly w/low fiberglass sides 0.5 to 1.0
Single poly w/high fiberglass sides 1.5 to 2.0
The U factor is also influenced by wind speed. The Double poly w/high fiberglass sides 1.0 to 1.5
above values are based upon a wind speed of 15 mph. If ________________
other wind speeds are expected to occur at the design a. Roberts, 1985, ASHRAE, 1978.
outside condition, then allowances should be made for this ______________________________________________
by adjusting the U factor are shown in Table 14.3.

As the number of air changes is related to the volume

Table 14.3 U Values at Various Wind Velocities of the greenhouse, after selecting the appropriate figure
______________________________________________ from above, it is necessary to calculate the volume of the
structure. For the example structure, this is most easily
Material Velocity (mph) accomplished in two steps. These figures do not include
0 5 10 20 25 30 ventilation.
Glass 0.765 0.951 1.040 1.140 1.160 1.180
Fiberglass 0.695 0.865 0.949 1.034 1.058 1.078 Volume (V1) of the greenhouse:
Single poly 0.810 1.000 1.090 1.190 1.210 1.230
Double poly 0.535 0.631 0.675 0.716 0.728 0.736 V1 = end wall area x greenhouse length
______________________________________________ V1 = 627 ft,2 ft x 120 ft
V1 = 75,247 ft3

For the example, the transmission heat loss (qp) for the
double poly roof area is:
qp = 5340 ft2 x 60oF x 0.70 Btu/h ft2 oF
qp = 224,280 Btu/h
From the Table 14.4, the number of air changes/h
(ACH) would be 1.0 to 1.5--use 1.0 (double poly with high
fiberglass sides).
Heat loss (q2) caused by infiltration:

and for the fiberglass areas: q2 = ACH x V T x DT x 0.018

qF = 3,174 ft2 x 60oF x 1.00 Btu/h ft2 oF
qF = 190,440 Btu/h
Total transmission heat loss (q1) is then:
q1 = qp + qF
q1 = 224,280 Btu/h + 190,440 Btu/h
q1 = 414,720 Btu/h
As mentioned previously, total heat loss is a function
of two components: (a) transmission heat loss, and (b) in-
filtration. For greenhouse design, infiltration is generally
analyzed via the air change method. This method is based
upon the number of times per hour (ACH) that the air in the
greenhouse is replaced by cold air leaking in from outside.
The number of air changes which occur is a function of
wind speed, greenhouse construction, and inside and
outside temperatures. Table 14.4 outlines general values
for different types of greenhouse construction.
q2 = 1.0 x 75,247 ft3 x 60oF x 0.018
q2 = 81,260 Btu/h
Total greenhouse heating (qT) requirement:
qT = q1 + q2
qT = 414,720 Btu/h + 81,260 Btu/h
qT = 495,980 Btu/h (98.41 Btu/ft2 of floor area)
This calculation assumes that infiltration will meet
winter ventilation requirements. If artificial ventilation is
required in excess of infiltration, this should be added to the
peak load.
This is the peak or design heating load for the
greenhouse. The heating equipment selected for the
structure would have to be capable of meeting this
requirement.
309
14.4 GREENHOUSE HEATING SYSTEMS 14.4.1 Heat Exchangers

There are basically six different geothermal heating In most geothermal applications, a heat exchanger is
systems which are applied to greenhouses: required to separate actual heating equipment from the
geothermal fluid. This is because of the scaling and corro-
1. Finned pipe sion associated with most geothermal fluids. Generally, the
2. Standard unit heaters heat exchanger is placed between two circulating loops, the
3. Low-temp. unit heaters geothermal loop and the clean loop, as shown in Figure
4. Fan coil units 14.2.
5. Soil heating
6. Bare tube.

Often the choice of heating system type is not dictated

by engineering considerations such as maximum use of the
available geothermal resource or even the most economical
system, but on grower preference. Grower preference may
be based strictly on past experience and familiarity with
growing crops with that system. It may also be influenced
by factors such as the type of crop, or potential disease
problems. Some crops, such as roses and mums, require
closely controlled humidity and a considerable amount of Figure 14.2 Heat exchanger schematic.
air circulation to prevent leaf mildew. If a radiant floor
system is used, auxiliary circulating fans will be required.
Tropical and subtropical potted plants, on the other hand,
may require high humidity and higher soil temperatures. In As a result of this heat exchanger, there is some loss in
this case, a radiant, under the bench system will be the temperature of the fluid available for use in the actual
preferred, perhaps combined with an overhead air system heating equipment. This temperature loss depends upon the
for snow melting, in order to get maximum sunlight during type of heat exchanger used. For plate-type heat exchang-
winter months in areas of high snow fall. Certain flowering ers, a temperature of 5 to 10oF should be applied, for shell
plants may require shading to control blooming, thereby and tube heat exchangers 15 to 20oF, and for homemade
enabling the grower to market at the most opportune time. configurations 20 to 40oF. For example, assuming a geo-
The type and location of the shading cover can affect the thermal resource temperature of 150oF is available, use of
placement of heating and air handling equipment and, a plate heat exchanger would result in 140oF supply water,
perhaps, the type of heating. as shown in Figure 14.2.

All these things should be taken into consideration and
the heating system designer should maintain close
communication with the grower in the selection of type and
the placement of heating devices.
The following paragraphs outline the performance of
the heating systems mentioned above.
Now that the heating requirement and supply water
temperature has been established, various heating systems
can be evaluated with respect to their ability to meet this
demand. For geothermal applications, the available geo-
thermal resource temperature has a large impact upon the
system chosen. This is a result of the fact that certain types
of heating methods yield better results with low-temperature
fluid than others.

Table 14.5 Steam and Extended Hot Water Ratingsa (Bare Element)
_______________________________________________________________________________________________

Bare Heating Hot Water Ratings, Btu/h/lf Average Water Temperature

Elements Rows 240oF 230oF 220oF 210oF 200oF 190oF 180oF 170oF
1 1630 1480 1370 1240 1120 1010 900 790
33 fins/ft 2 2810 2570 2360 2140 1940 1760 1550 1370
3 3660 3340 3080 2780 2520 2290 2020 1790

40 fins/ft 1 1750 1600 1470 1330 1220 1090 970 850

2 2930 2670 2460 2220 2010 1830 1610 1430
__________________
a. Vulcan, 1976
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
310
 Finned Pipe
As the name implies, finned pipe is usually constructed
of steel or copper pipe with steel or aluminum fins attached
to the outside. These fins can either be circular, square or
rectangular in shape. In the size range employed in green-
houses, the steel pipe with steel fins is most common.
Since most finned-pipe heating equipment used in
geothermal projects was originally designed for standard hot
water use, heating capacity is generally based upon 200oF or
higher average water temperature and 65oF entering air
temperature. If the available supply temperature from the
geothermal system is less than the 200oF value, the capacity
of the heating equipment, in this case finned pipes, will be
less than the rated value. In addition, heating capacity of
finned pipe, usually expressed in Btu/h per lineal foot, is
influenced by fin size, pipe size and flow velocity. Table
14.5 shows one manufacturers rating for equipment.
Table 14.6 shows the appropriate de-rating factors to
be applied for average water temperatures of <190oF.
Table 14.6 Derating Factors (Vulcan, 1976)
______________________________________________
Average Water
(oF) Factor
180 0.80
160 0.62
140 0.47
120 0.30
100 0.17
______________________________________________
It is important to note that the capacity of this
equipment is indexed to average water temperature, not
supply water temperature. In order to find average water
temperature (AWT), it is first necessary to calculate the
temperature drop (DT), which is found according to the
following relationship:
DT = q/(500 x Q)
where
DT = temperature drop (oF)
q = heating requirement (Btu/h)
500 = constant, Btu/h gpm (oF)
Q = flow rate (gpm).
Using the greenhouse example from above, with a
requirement of 495,980 Btu/h, assume a 150oF resource, a
flow of 50 gpm, and the use of a plate-type heat exchanger.
DT = (495,980 Btu/h)/(500 Btu/h gpm oF x 50 gpm)
DT = 20oF
With a 150oF resource and a 10 F loss across the heat
exchanger, this results in a 140o F supply temperature (Ts).
Since a 20oF drop from supply to return was calculated, the
average water temperature is then:
AWT = Ts - (DT/2)
AWT = 140oF - (20oF/2)
AWT = 130oF.
This provides the information required to select the
necessary length of finned-pipe heating element required.
Using Table 14.5, for a 2-in. steel element having 4-1/4
in.(1 row) square fins spaced at 33/ft, output at 200oF AWT
(factor of 1.00) is 1120 Btu/h lf. Using an interpolated cor-
rection factor of 0.385 from Table 14.6, actual capacity will
be 0.385 x 1120 Btu/h lf = 431 Btu/h lf at the 130oF AWT.
With this value and the heating requirement of 495,980
Btu/h, calculate the length (l) of element required as:
l = (495,980 Btu/h)/(431 Btu/h lf)
l = 1,151 ft.
This large length requirement points up the limitation
of finned pipe with respect to low temperature. As average
water temperature falls below about 150oF, large lengths of
finned element are required to meet the heating load in
colder regions. As a result, finned pipe is not a particularly
good choice for low-temperature resources.
Finned elements are generally installed along the long
dimension of the greenhouse adjacent to the outside wall.
Improved heat distribution is achieved if about one-third of
the total required length is installed in an evenly spaced
pattern across the greenhouse floor (ASHRAE 1978). This
system has the disadvantage of using precious floor space
that would otherwise be available for plants. In addition, it
is less capable of dealing effectively with ventilation if it is
required. Maintenance requirements are low, particular-
ly if a heat exchanger is used. In addition, the natural
convection nature of the finned pipe system does not
increase electrical costs as a result of fan operation.
The costs for finned pipe elements are a function of the
type and size of piping (steel or copper), and fin spacing
(fins/ft). It is not possible to present costs for all combina-
tions of these characteristics; however, Table 14.7 should
serve to illustrate cost trends in fin pipe equipment.
For labor cost estimating, a value of 0.25 to 0.35 man
hours per lineal foot can be employed for finned pipe
installation (Khashab, 1984).
311
Table 14.7 Comparative Costs of Finned Pipe Because these units are generally constructed with
Elements (Means, 1996) copper tubes, even very small concentrations of dissolved
______________________________________________ hydrogen sulphide (H2S) or ammonia (NH3) will result in
rapid failure. In addition, the long path through which the
Element Cost/lf ($) water must flow in the unit heater can result in scaling if the
fluid has this tendency. As a result, a unit heater system
Copper/aluminum (3/4 in., 33 fin/ft) 5.40 should not be applied without an isolation heat exchanger.
Copper/aluminum (1 in., 33 fin/ft) 7.50
Steel/steel (1-1/4 in., 33 fin/ft) 11.00 Using information from the example greenhouse, unit
Steel/steel (1-1/4 in., 40 fin/ft) 12.30 heaters can be selected to meet the heating requirement.
Steel/steel (2 in., 24 fin/ft) 10.80 Example conditions are given in Table 14.10.
Steel/steel (2 in., 33 fin/ft) 12.60
______________________________________________ From Table 14.9, find a correction factor of 0.571.
This factor is then applied to the capacity values shown in
Table 14.8 to adjust them to the system conditions.
Standard Unit Heaters
Table 14.9 Unit Heater Correction Factors a
Unit heaters consist of a finned coil and small (Modine, 1979)
propeller fan contained in a pre-designed unit. These units ______________________________________________
are available in either horizontal or vertical configurations
and are generally hung from the greenhouse structure at EAT(oF)
o
roof level (see Chapter 12, Figures 12.24 and 12.25). Air EWT ( F) 40 60 10080
is discharged either directly into the greenhouse or into a 80 0.293 0.143 -0-
-0-
perforated plastic distribution tube (poly tube). 100 0.439 0.286 0.140
0.069
120 0.585 0.429 0.279
0.137
As with the finned pipe equipment, unit heaters are 140 0.731 0.571 0.419
0.273
generally rated at 200oF entering water temperature (EWT) 160 0.878 0.714 0.559
0.410
and 60 F entering air temperature (EAT). Changes in 180 1.024 0.857 0.699
0.547
either of these two parameters will affect unit capacity 200 1.170 1.000 0.833
0.684
(usually expressed in Btu/h). Since most geothermal _____________________
resources applied to greenhouses are <200oF, some a. To be applied to standard ratings.
adjustment of unit capacity is necessary. Table 14.8 shows _____________________________________________
a typical set of manufacturer's performance data for unit
heaters at standard conditions (200oF EWT/60oF EAT). To
adjust for other conditions, Table 14.9 values are employed. Table 14.10 Unit Heater Example Conditions
It is important that the gpm values shown in Table 14.8 are ______________________________________________
met. Providing a unit with a flow less than that shown will
decrease capacity. Condition Value
Load 495,980 Btu/h
Resource temperature 150oF
Table 14.8 Hot Water Unit Heater Ratingsa Heat exchanger loss 10oF
(Modine, 1979) Supply water temperature 140oF (150-10oF)
______________________________________________ Greenhouse inside design temp. 60oF
______________________________________________
Final
Air
Model Btu/h GPM CFM Temp. HP For greenhouses over 50 ft in length, it is advisable to
place unit heaters at each end to allow for better heat
A 90,000 9.0 1775 110 1/6 distribution. Assuming two units are used in this case, each
B 133,000 13.4 3240 100 1/3 would need a capacity (q) of:
C 139,000 14.0 2900 107 1/3
D 198,000 20.0 4560 102 1/2 q = (495,980 Btu/h)/2 = 247,990 Btu/h.
E 224,000 22.0 4590 108 1/2
F 273,000 27.0 5130 108 1/2 To convert this to an equivalent in Table 14.8, dividing
__________________ by the above correction factor of 0.571:
a. Standard Conditions, 200oF EWT/60oF EAT.
______________________________________________ q = (247,990 Btu/h)/0.571 = 434,308 Btu/h.

312
 A two-unit system will not work because the largest Poly tube adapter costs are given in Table 14.12
unit capacity for a horizontal configuration is 273,000
Btu/h. The next step is to try a four-unit system--two-unit Table 14.12 Poly Tube Adapter Costsa(1996)
heaters at each end of the house. In this case, each unit ______________________________________________
would have a capacity of:
Size Cost
q = (434,308 Btu/h)/2 = 217,154 Btu/h. (in.) ($)
12 100
This results in half the capacity calculated for the 18 115
single unit above. 24 175
__________________
The proper selection would be the "E" unit at a a. Roper, undated.
capacity of 224,000 Btu/h. This is slightly more than the ______________________________________________
required 217,154 and will allow for a margin of safety in
the design. As shown, the flow requirement (Q) for the four
units will be: Low-Temperature Unit Heaters

Q = 22 gpm x 4 units = 88 gpm. Low-temperature unit heaters are similar to standard

If the available flow rate is less than this value, unit
capacity would have to be corrected for operation at this
reduced flow, possibly resulting in the need for additional
units.
Two types of hot-water unit heaters are commonly used
in greenhouse applications: horizontal and vertical. Of
these two configurations, the horizontal unit is the more
common. Vertical unit heaters are generally available in
larger capacities than the horizontal units. In addition to
the unit heater itself, a "poly tube" adapter is frequently
required to attach the distribution system to the front of the
heating device. Prices for each of these items are shown in
Table 14.11. Capacities for unit heaters are based on 200oF
entering water temperature.
Table 14.11 Horizontal and Vertical Unit Heater
Costsa
______________________________________________
unit heaters; but, their design is optimized for low-water
temperature operation. These units incorporate a more
effective water coil and a higher capacity fan. They are
larger and heavier than standard unit heaters, and in some
applications, may require additional support if suspended
from the ceiling. These units are horizontal in configuration
and use a propeller-type fan.
Performance of the low-temperature unit heaters falls
between that of standard unit heaters and fan-coil units.
Performance data for this equipment appear in Table 14.13.
Costs appear in Table 14.14.
As indicated in the table, this equipment is rated in
terms of its capacity per degree of entering temperature
difference (ETD). Entering temperature difference is
calculated by subtracting the space air temperature from the
supply water temperature. For a greenhouse maintained at
60oF with a supply water temperature of 125 oF, an ETD
value of 65oF would result.

Horizontal Unit Heaters Table 14.13 Low-Temperature Unit Heaters

Capacityb Cost Performance Data (Modine, 1985)
(MBH) ($) ______________________________________________
23 822
44 874 Water Btu/ F of Entering Temperature Difference
66 995 Flow (gpm) Single Fan (3850 cfm) Two Fan (7700 cfm)
97 1210 5 1500 2500
133 1294 10 2200 3600
153 1294 15 2500 4300
198 1581 20 2750 4900
257 1811 25 2850 5300
__________________ 30 3000 5650
a. Means, 1996. 35 3100 5800
b. 1000 Btu/h. 40 3100 6000
______________________________________________ ______________________________________________

313
 Based on the example, greenhouse heat loss of
495,980 Btu/hr, a 125oF supply water temperature, and a 30
o
F DT, the following calculations can be made:
System flow rate = 495,980 Btu/hr (500 30)
=33.1 gpm
Using two units, the single fan rate would have a
capacity of:
33.1 2 = 16.6 gpm ea.
tom designed coil can have as many as six or eight rows.
The additional rows of tubes create more surface area.
The added surface area allows for more effective heat
transfer, resulting in the ability to extract more heat from
the water. To illustrate this, consider the unit heater
selected in the previous section. Conditions are given in
Table 14.15.
Table 14.15 Unit Heater Examplea (two row)
_____________________________________________

From Table 14.13: Condition Value

Interpolate for capacity @ 16.6 gpm Capacity 127,904 Btu/h

= 2,580 Btu/hr oF ETD (0.571 x 224,000)a
Capacity = 2,580 65 Air flow 4,590 cfmb
= 167,700 Btu/hr Water flow 22 gpm
Supply water temperature 140oF
Number of units required: Leaving water temperature 128.4oF
Leaving air temperature 85.8oF
= 495,980 Btu/hr 167,700 __________________
=2.96 or 3 units a. Model E unit heater.
b. Cubic ft/min.
Two-fan units: _____________________________________________

Capacity @ 16.6 gpm = 4,492 Btu/hr oF ETD Supplying the same temperature water to a fan coil unit
@ 65oF ETD capacity with a four-row coil would result in the values as shown in
= 4,492 65 Table 14.16.
= 291,980 Btu/hr

Number of units required: Table 14.16 Fan Coil Examplea (four-row)

_____________________________________________
= 495,980 Btu/hr 291,980 Btu/hr
= 1.70 or 2 units. Condition Value

Capacity 275,171 Btu/h

Table 14.14 Cost Data for Low-Temperature Air flow 4,590 cfm
Unit Heaters Water flow 13.76 gpm
______________________________________________ Supply water temp. 140oF
Leaving water temp. 100oF
Single fan unit $2,800 Air in temp. 60oF
Two-fan unit $5,100 Air out temp. 115oF
______________________________________________ __________________
a. Four-row coil with 11 fins/in., 2.5 ft x 3.67 ft.
_____________________________________________
Fan Coil Units

These units are similar to the standard unit heater
discussed previously. They consist of a finned coil and a
centrifugal blower in a single cabinet. A few manufacturers
offer units in an off-the-shelf line for low temperature
greenhouse heating. It is much more common that they are
custom selected. The difference between the fan coil unit
and the hot-water unit heater is primarily in the coil itself.
In the fan coil system, the coil is much thicker and usually
has closer fin spacing than the coil in a unit heater. Unit
heaters generally have only a one or two row coil. A cus-
Using only 60% of the water flow, the fan coil unit has
the capability to more than double the heat output. In
addition, the leaving air temperature is raised to 115oF from
85.8oF.
This benefit is not without cost, however. The fan coil
units are generally larger and more bulky than the hot-water
unit heater. As a result, they cost more. The larger coils
discussed above generally require a larger fan motor to
push the air through the added coil resistance. In this case,

314
the unit heater would require a 0.5 horsepower (hp), motor
and the fan coil unit would require a 1 hp motor. These
factors may be compensated for by increased capacity, thus
requiring fewer units.
The ability to extract more heat from each gallon of
water pumped reduces well pumping requirements and
allows the development of more greenhouse area, using the
same resource. As a general rule of thumb, a well designed
coil can cool water down to within about 15 to 25oF of the
space temperature. For example, if a greenhouse is to be
maintained at 60oF and the coils are supplied with water at
120oF, a system DT of 120oF - (60oF + 25oF), or 35oF could
be achieved. If the well flow is known, then the total heat
supplied (q) can be calculated as:
q = 500 x gpm x DT = Btu/h.
This figure can then be compared to greenhouse heat
loss to find the total area of greenhouse that can be
developed.
The fan coil construction is very similar to that of the
unit heater. For the same reasons, it is recommended that
they be applied with an isolation heat exchanger. The
fan-coil system is the most cost effective method for
e x tra c ti ng la rg e q u an t iti es o f h ea t fr om
very-low-temperature heating mediums.
Table 14.17 presents pricing information for fan coil
equipment.
Table 14.17 Fan Coil Unit Prices (Means, 1996)
______________________________________________
Unit Nominal Capacitya Cost
(cfm) Btu/hr ($)
2000 120,000 1750
4000 240,000 2500
6000 360,000 3500
8000 480,000 4500
__________________
a. @ 115oF supply air temperature
______________________________________________
As with the unit heater, a poly tube adapter would be
required if this equipment is to be attached to such a
distribution system. For prices, see Table 14.12.
Soil Heating
This system generally involves using the floor of the
greenhouse as a large radiator. Tubes, through which warm
water is circulated, are buried in the floor of the
greenhouse. Heat from warm water is transferred through
the tube to the soil and, eventually, to the air in the
greenhouse.
In the past, tube materials were generally copper or
steel. Because of corrosion and expansion problems with
these materials, nonmetallic materials have seen increasing
application in recent years. The most popular of these is
polybutylene. This material is able to withstand relatively
high temperatures (up to 180oF) and is available in roll
form for easy installation. PVC piping is only available in
rigid form and is limited with respect to temperature.
Polyethylene and similar materials are available in flexible
roll form, but are (as PVC) generally limited in terms of
temperature handling ability.
A soil heating system is preferred by many operators
because it results in very even temperature distribution from
floor to ceiling and does not obstruct floor space or cause
shadows. However, its ability to supply 100% of the
heating requirements of a greenhouse necessitates a rather
mild climate and a low inside design temperature. This is
caused by the nature of heat transfer in the system. As
heating requirements are increased, the required heat output
from the floor is increased. In order to produce more heat,
the floor surface temperature must be increased. Very
quickly a point is reached at which it is difficult to spend
extended periods on such a hot floor. In addition, if
plants are grown on or near the floor (including benches),
heat transfer to the plants may be excessive with a radiant
floor system. As a result, this system is generally employed
in conjunction with another system such as unit heaters.
The floor system supplies the base load for the greenhouse
and the secondary system is used for occasional peaking
purposes.
The procedure for designing a floor system consists of:
1. Determining the heat load for the greenhouse.
2. Calculating the required floor temperature to meet the
load.
3. Calculating the required size, depth and spacing of the
tubes.
The load analysis portion of the procedure has been
covered. The next step is to determine the required floor
surface temperature.
The heat output of the floor (usually expressed in
Btu/h ft2) is a function of the floor surface temperature,
greenhouse air temperature and average temperature of
unheated surfaces in the room (AUST). Heat output from
the floor occurs by two mechanisms: convection and
radiation.
After the heat loss of the greenhouse has been
calculated, it is divided by the area of the floor which will
be used for heating purposes (usually about 10% less than
the actual floor area). Using the previous greenhouse
example, 42 ft x 120 ft, with a total heat loss of 495,980
Btu/h, the value for heat loss (q/A) is:
315
 q/A = (495,980 Btu/h)/(42 ft x 120 ft x 0.90) This value can now be inserted into the equation for
q/A = 109.4 Btu/h ft2. floor temperature developed by ASHRAE as:

This value is then used in the following equation to q/A = 0.15((Tf + 460/100)4 - (31.0 + 460/100)4 )
solve for the required floor surface temperature (ASHRAE, + (0.32(Tf - 60)1.32) = 109.4 Btu/h ft2
1984):
Tf 460 Solving for Tf:
AUST 460 4
q/A 0.15x [( )4 ( ) ] 0.32(Tf Ta)1.32
100 100
Tf = 103oF.

where This means that in order to meet the peak demand, a

Tf = floor surface temperature
Ta = indoor air temperature.
Before the above can be solved for Tf, a value for
AUST must first be calculated. As mentioned earlier,
AUST is the area weighted average temperature of
unheated surfaces in the room. For a greenhouse, these
surfaces are the walls and roof.
Inside surface temperature can be calculated according
to the formula below. Referring back to the heat loss
example, the greenhouse is constructed of both double poly
(roof) and single fiberglass (walls). The calculation for
AUST is:
IST = IDT - ((0.595/(1/ U)) x DT)
where
IST = inside surface temperature (oF)
IDT = inside design temperature (oF)
U = glazing material U factor, Btu/h ft2 (oF)
DT = design temperature difference (oF).
For the example greenhouse, the inside surface
temperature of the double poly roof area is:
IST = 60oF - ((0.595/(1/0.70)) x 60oF)
IST = 35.0oF.
The inside surface temperature for the single fiberglass
area is:
IST = 60oF - ((0.595/(1/1.0)) x 60oF)
IST = 24.3oF
AUST = (A1 x IST1 + A2 x IST2)/(A1 + A2)
(5,340ft 2 x 35oF) (3,174 ft 2 x 24.3oF)
AUST
(5,340 ft 2 3,174 ft 2)
AUST = 31.0oF
floor surface temperature of 103oF would be required.
Plants could not be grown on or near such warm soil. In
addition, the amount of time that workers could be exposed
would be limited. As a result, it would be advisable to
supply a portion of the design capacity with this system
and the rest with a secondary system. If the system is
designed for only 60% of peak requirements (65.5 Btu/h
ft2), a floor temperature of only 84 oF would be required.
This figure is close to the maximum recommended floor
surface temperature of 85oF for occupied areas. If the
greenhouse is occupied only for brief periods, this value
can be exceeded somewhat. A secondary system would be
used for peaking.
The next step is to determine the depth and spacing of
the tubes supplying the heat. Tube spacing and size is
dependent upon the available water temperature. Generally,
depth is more a function of protecting the tubes from
surface activity than system design, and a figure of 2 to 6
in. below the surface is common.
Since it is the purpose of the floor panel system to use
the floor as a large radiator, it follows that the installation
of the tubing should result in as uniform a floor surface
temperature as possible. This is accomplished by two
general approaches: (a) placing smaller diameter tubes at
close spacing near the surface of the floor, or (b) placing
larger tubes spaced further apart at a greater burial depth.
The theory behind this approach is to reduce the difference
between the distance heat must travel vertically (from the
tube to the surface directly above it) and laterally (from
each tube to the surface between the tubes)(Adlam, 1947).
The depth at which the tubes are to be buried is often
a function of protecting them from surface activity. For
burial in the soil floor of a greenhouse, a depth of at least 2
to 3 in. should be employed. If crops are to be grown
directly in the soil, depth requirements are such that this
type of system becomes impractical.
Tubing size is a function of heating requirements.
Common sizes are in., 3/4 in. and 1 in. with the smaller
sizes used generally in the 2 to 4 in. depth and the larger
lines for depths of 5 in. and greater.

316
 The final determination of the size and spacing is a
function of heat output (Btu/ft2) required, mean water
temperature, soil conductivity, and burial depth.

The required heat loss is fixed by the type of

greenhouse construction used. Soil conductivity is also
fixed by site characteristics. As mentioned earlier, the
minimum burial depth is fixed by surface activity. As a
result, the choice of size and spacing is balanced against
mean water temperature, the single parameter over which
the designer has some control. Table 14.18 lists some
maximum mean water temperatures for various situations.
Employing mean water temperatures above these values
will result in floor surface temperatures greater than 900F.
If workers are to spend extended periods in the greenhouse,
floor surface temperatures above this value would be
unacceptable.

Table 14.18 Maximum Recommended Mean Water

Temperatures (oF)
______________________________________________

Polybutylene
Burial Depth Steel Pipe Tube
(in.) k = 0.5 k = 0.75 k =0.5 k = 0.75
1 111 105 124 112 Figure 14.3 Single- and double-serpentine piping
2 116 110 131 120 layout.
3 122 115 139 128
4 125 117 144 131
5 128 120 148 135 DT = (297,108 Btu/h)/(500 Btu/h gpm oF
6 134 125 156 142 x 60 gpm) = 9.9oF
___________________________
a. k = soil conductivity in Btu/hr ft oF The resulting mean water temperature (Tw) would be:
______________________________________________
Tw = 133oF - (9.9oF/2) = 128oF

In addition to the maximum mean water temperature,
it is also important when making this calculation to be
aware of system DT (supply temperature minus return water
temperature) and its impact upon system design.
Temperature drops above approximately 15oF should
employ a double serpentine to balance the circuit output.
For DT below 15oF, a single serpentine can be used as
shown in Figure 14.3.
Using the heating requirement and floor surface
temperature calculated above, some combinations of tubing
size and spacing can be determined. It will be assumed
that, because of surface activity, the tubes would have to be
buried a minimum of 3 in. below the surface. Soil
conductivity is 0.75 Btu/h ft2 oF. Resource temperature is
140oF and a flow of 60 gpm is available. Polybutylene
tubing will be employed. Plate heat exchanger loss is 7oF.
As a result of the heat exchanger loss, 133oF fluid will
be available for supply. If the entire flow is used, the
system DT would be:
This value is equal to the recommended maximum
mean water temperature found in Table 14.18, so design
can proceed. If this value had been above the recommend-
ed temperature, either the tubes would have to be buried
deeper or the radiant floor system operated at a lower
supply-water temperature.
Subtracting the required floor surface temperature
from the mean water temperature results in the
tube-to-surface temperature difference. Using this and the
value from Figure 14.4, the heat out-put per lineal foot (lf)
of tube can be determined. From Figure 14.4, for a burial
depth of 3 in., a value of 1.60 Btu/h lf oF for 3/4 in. tubing
results. For 1 in. tubing due to greater surface area, the
value would be (1.60 x 1.00/0.75) = 2.13 Btu/h lf oF.
The heat output per lf for each of these tubes would be
arrived at by multiplying the Btu/hr lf oF value times the
tube-to-surface temperature difference.
For 3/4 in. tube: 1.60 x (128oF - 84oF) = 70.4 Btu/h lf

317
 For 1 in. tube: 2.13 x (128oF - 84oF) = 93.7 Btu/h lf
The tube spacing is determined by dividing the tube
output per lineal foot into the heating requirement (per
square foot).
For 3/4 in. tube: (65.5 Btu/ft2 h)/(70.4 Btu/h lf)
= 0.93 lf/ft2
Using the base case tube spacing and 3/4 in. tubes, a
total of 4,218 ft of tubing will be required. In order that a
reasonable pressure drop will be attained, the total 60 gpm
flow would be divided among a number of individual
circuits. At a velocity of approximately 3 ft/s, each circuit
would carry 5 gpm. This would require 12 circuits for the
total flow. If the 1 in. tubing is used, a smaller number of
higher flow circuits could be employed.

For 1 in. tube: (65.5 Btu/ft2 h)/(93.7 Btu/h lf) As suggested above, a heat exchanger is used in this
= 0.70 lf/ft2. case. This is for two reasons: protection from scaling and
control of temperature.

Control of temperature is the most critical. The only

method of controlling the output of a floor system is by
controlling the water temperature in the tubes. The use of
a heat exchanger allows this control to be carried out more
easily. The flow of geothermal fluid to the exchanger is
regulated to maintain a given supply temperature to the
heating loop as shown in Figure 14.2.

As suggested in the example, a great deal of piping

Figure 14.4 Heat output for radiant floor system.
Taking the inverse of the above results and multiplying
by 12 in./ft yields tube spacing:
For 3/4 in. tube: (1/0.93) x 12 = 12.9 in.
For 1 in. tube: (1/0.70) x 12 = 17.1 in.
material is required to supply just 60% of the peak
requirement of a greenhouse in a cold location. In addition,
the inability to grow directly in or on the soil surface also
restricts the wide acceptance of this type of system.
The cost of both polybutylene and polyethylene piping
is a function of pipe size and the standard dimension ratio
(SDR). The SDR is related to the nominal pipe size
divided by the wall thickness, or as the SDR increases,
the wall thickness decreases. Material costs shown in Table
14.20 are for SDR 11. This material is rated at 100 psi at
180oF (polybutylene) and 160 psi at 70oF (polyethylene).

In most cases, because of losses downward and at the Table 14.20 Polyethylene and Polybutylene Pipe
edges, a safety factor of 10 to 15% is added to the tube Costs (Means, 1996)
requirements. This is most conveniently accomplished by ______________________________________________
reducing the tube spacing by 10 to 15%.
Size Polybutylene Polyethylene
In order to demonstrate the sensitivity of the system to (in.) ($/lf) ($/lf)
other parameters, Table 14.19 shows some additional tube 1/4 0.32 -
spacing calculations that are made: 3/8 0.40 -
1/2 0.40 0.20
3/4 0.74 0.29
Table 14.19 Tube Spacing (in.) 1 1.25 0.44
______________________________________________ ______________________________________________

Tubing
Soil k Depth MWT 3/4 in. 1 in. Bare Tube System
Base case 0.75 3 128 12.9 17.1
0.5 3 128 8.10 10.8 This system involves the use of bare tubing, usually
0.75 6 128 10.23 13.6 small diameter polybutylene or similar material. The tubing
0.5 3 118 8.94 11.9 is installed either on the floor or suspended under benches.
0.5 6 118 5.43 7.2 It is preferable for the tubing to be located low in the
______________________________________________ greenhouse, although a portion may be located overhead.
Regardless of the installation location, it is very important

318
that the tubing be arranged such that each tube is separated
from the others. If the tubes are bunched together, the
effective surface area of each is reduced, thus lowering
heating capacity.
In colder regions, this system encounters the same
problem as the floor panel system in that large quantities of
tubing are required to meet the design requirement.
Control of the system in many cases has been manual
by way of gate valves. However, as with the floor panel
system, the use of a heat exchanger can allow accurate
control of temperature and, hence, output. Design of a
system is based upon the average water temperature of the
heating loop. For a system using a heat exchanger:
1. Determine the flow of geothermal fluid available. We
will assume 80 gpm at 150oF for the example case.
2. Calculate the greenhouse heat loss; i.e., 495,980 Btu/h
for the example.
3. Determine the temperature drop in the available water
flow:
DT = q/(500 x gpm)
DT = (495,980 Btu/h)/(500 Btu/h gpm oF x 80 gpm)
DT = 12.4oF.
4. Determine heating loop average water temperature
(AWT) using:
Ts = Tg - 10oF
where
Using a 3/4 in. tube, 60oF air temperature and 134oF
AWT, Btu/h lf for the example case:
((1.016 x (1/1.05)0.2 x (1/557)0.181 x (71)1.266)
+ ((15.7 x 10-10) x ((594)4 - (505)4))) x (0.275)
q/l = 45.1 Btu/h lf
The total length (l) required to meet the design load
becomes:
l = (495,980 Btu/h)/(45.1 Btu/h lf)
l = 10,997 lf
This length requirement can then be compared to
requirements for other tubing sizes and water temperatures
to determine the most economical system.
Costs for polybutylene and polyethylene piping used in
the bare tube system are shown under the previous section.
The procedures presented in this chapter are intended
to familiarize the reader with some of the considerations
appropriate to greenhouse heating systems. It is strongly
recommended that the services of a consulting engineer be
retained for final design purposes.
14.5 PEAKING WITH FOSSIL FUEL
To this point, design methods in this chapter have been
based upon meeting 100% of the peak load with the
geothermal heating equipment. Under some circumstances,
a strategy in which the geothermal system is designed for
less than 100% of the peak may be worthwhile.

Ts = supply temperature (oF) A situation where this may be considered is one in

Tg = geothermal resource temp. (oF) which a grower wishes to expand an existing operation, but
Ts = 150oF - 10oF is faced with limited resource flow. Using low-temperature
Ts = 140F effluent from the existing facility, it may be difficult to
configure a system which will meet the peak load,
AWT = Ts - (DT/2) particularly with bare tube-type terminal equipment. In this
AWT = 140oF - (12.4oF/2) case, designing the geothermal system for 50 to 70% of the
AWT = 134oF peak and meeting the remaining load with a conven-tional
system may have some merit. In most climates, this design
5. Calculate heat output per foot of tubing based on the will still allow the geothermal to meet 95% or more of the
average water temperature (AWT) using: annual heating energy requirement.

q/l = ((1.016 x (1/D)0.2 x (1/Tavg)0.181 x (? T1.266)) 14.5.1 Climate Considerations

+ ((15.7 x 10-10) x (T14 - T2 4))) x ft2/lf pipe
The rationale behind using different base load and
where peak load heating systems lies in the annual temperature
profile. Figure 14.5 presents a comparison of the number
D = tube outside diameter (in.) of hours per year at various temperatures. It is apparent that
Tave = 460 + (AWT + Tair)/2 the annual number of hours at very low outside
DT = AWT - (Tair + 3oF) temperatures is quite low compared to the number of hours
T1 = 460 + AWT at more moderate tempeatures.
T2 = 460 + T3
T3 = (AUST + Tair)/2
319
 1200 100

1000 80

800 Temperatures represent the 60

midpoint of individual bins ie
52 represents occurrences
600 from 50 to 54.
40

400
20
200
0
0 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
57 52 47 42 37 32 27 22 17 12 7 2 -3 Outside Air Temperature
Outside Air Temp (F)

Figure 14.5 Temperature occurrences, Klamath Figure 14.6 Annual heating energy requirement.
Falls, Oregon.

Figure 14.7 presents a plot of the annual energy re-

This data is arranged in 5oF increments (i.e., 70 to 74
o
F). These 5oF increments are known as temperature bins
and data from which it comes is referred to as bin data. Bin
data for many locations in the U.S. is published by the
Defense Department in Engineering Weather Data, AFM
88-29, 1978.
It is apparent from Figure 14.5, that a system designed
for 100% of the peak load actually operates at those
conditions for only a very few hours per year. As a result,
a system designed for 100% of the peak load is grossly
underutilized.
The amount of energy required to heat a building (on
an annual basis) is determined by the number of hours
occurring at outside temperatures less than the temperature
maintained in the structure. The quantity of annual energy
required at a particular temperature bin is determined by the
number of hours at that bin and the temperature difference
between it and the inside temperature of the structure. Sum-
ming the number of hours at various outside temperatures
permits the development of a cumulative heating require-
ment curve similar to that in Figure 14.6 . This particular
plot was developed for an inside temperature of 60o F
using the weather data from Figure 14.6. The plot indicates
the percentage of annual heating requirements occurring
above (or below) a particular outside air temperature. For
example, reading vertically from 30oF to the intersection
with the curve and then horizontally to the axis, yields a
figure of approximately 71%. That is, 71% of the annual
heating requirement occurs at this design temperature.
This is significant since the normal design temperature
in the Klamath Falls area is 0oF. A system designed for
30oF would be only 50% the size of a system designed for
100% of the load (IDT 60oF). Despite this, it could capture
71% of the annual heating requirements. In addition to this,
the down-sized system would capture most of the remaining
29% of heating energy requirement by operating in parallel
with a peaking system.
quirements which could be met by a base load system
designed for various percentages of the peak load. This plot
assumes that the base load system continues to operate (at
its maximum capacity) in parallel with the peak load system
below the balance point. The 50% (of peak load) system
described above would capture approximately 93% of the
annual heating requirements of the structure (assuming a
60oF IDT, 0oF ODT and Figure 14.5 weather data).
100
99
98
97
96
95
94
93
92
50 60 70 80 90
% of Peak Load for Base Load System
Figure 14.7 Annual heating energy capture, 60oF
inside temperature, Klamath Falls,
Oregon.
It is clear that due to the nature of temperature
occurrences, the base load heating system is capable of
meeting only half the peak heating requirement and still
meets more than 90% of the annual heating energy needs of
a structure.
14.5.2 Peaking Equipment Capital Costs
Two broad approaches are available for the use of
conventionally-fired peak heating equipment in a hot-water
greenhouse heating system: individual unit heaters and
central peaking boiler.

320
 Individual unit heaters offer the advantage of zero floor
space requirements (since they can be hung from the
ceiling). Because each unit requires accessory equipment
(flue pipe, thermostat, distribution poly tube, fuel line,
electrical connection, etc.), the cost of a given amount of
heating capacity is relatively high in comparison to the
boiler approach. This affect is compounded by the need to
use a large number of units to assure adequate air
distribution. For example, consider a 1-acre greenhouse for
which a peaking system capacity of 1,300,000 Btu/hr is
required. Although it is possible to supply this capacity
with just three or four large units, to assure adequate air
distribution, a minimum of 8 or 10 units should be
employed. Costs for unit heater capacity assuming 10 units
per acre appear in Figure 14.8.
70
60
UH oil
50
40
UH gas
BLR oil
30
BLR gas
20
10
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Peaking System Capacity million Btu/hr
Figure 14.8 Peaking equipment costs.
The costs shown include, for the propane- (or natural
gas), fired unit heaters (UH gas): unit heater (blower type),
installation, flue pipe and cap, thermostat and wire, fuel
distribution pipe (inside greenhouse), and electrical
connection (120 v). Costs for the oil unit heater (UH oil)
equipment reflects the much higher cost for this type of unit
and includes the cost of a double-wall oil storage tank (2500
gal). Oil-fired unit heaters are much more expensive (50 -
80% depending upon size) than equivalent capacity gas-
fired units. This fact along with the cost of the oil tank
tends to push the cost of the oil-fired unit heater system far
above the other alternatives. All unit heater equipment
costs assume the use of blower-type units.
The central boiler (BLR) approach involves the in-
stallation of a peaking boiler downstream of the geothermal
heat exchanger. The boilers function is to boost the supply
water temperature to the heating equipment during the peak
load period. The higher water temperature allows a down-
sized tubing system to provide the required capacity to meet
the space heating requirement. Because only a single piece
of equipment (along with its accessory equipment) is
required, the cost of a given heat output is much lower than
for the unit heater equipment cited above. Figuer 14.8
presents costs for both propane- (BLR gas) and oil-fired
(BLR oil) cast iron boiler equipment. These costs include
boiler, stack, electrical connection, fuel lines, controls, 3-
way valve, circulating pump, installation, and for the oil
system, a double-wall storage tank of 2500 gal.
14.5.3 Controls and Operational Considerations
The object of the peaking equipment is to provide the
capacity difference between the structures requirement and
the capacity of the base load (geothermal) system. This task
must be accomplished in such a way as to produce even
heat output without compromising the performance of the
base load system.
Peaking with individual unit heaters is a simple process
with regard to controls. Each individual unit is equipped
with a thermostat which initiates operation of the unit when
additional capacity is required in the zone that it
serves. To eliminate unnecessary operation, it is useful to
incoprorate an outside temperature driven lockout to
prevent use of the peaking unit above the balance point
temperature.
For the boiler design, the situation is somewhat more
complex. This results from the boiler being incorporated
into the heating loop. Because the boiler changes the
temperature of the supply water, it not only influences the
output of the terminal equipment, but also the capacity of
the geothermal heat exchanger.
Figure 14.9 presents a common design for installing a
boiler on a circulating water loop. Located downstream of
the heat exchanger, the boilers function is to raise the
supply water temperature to the terminal equipment during
the peak heat load period. This is accomplished by resetting
the supply water upward as the outside air temperature
decreases. Table 14.21 presents a typical temperature reset
schedule. In this case, the boiler begins operation between
30 and 25oF outside air temperature. Actual temperatures
will vary with system design.
As the supply water temperature rises, the output of the
terminal equipment rises. At the same time, the temper-
ature of the return water rises as well.
The rise in return temperature occurs at a rate less than
the supply water increase due to the higher output of the
terminal equipment (which results in an increasing system
DT). However, the rising return water temperature erodes
the capacity of the geothermal heat exchanger to the extent
that its capacity at the peak condition (0oF outside) is
approximately 50% of its capacity prior to the initiation of
boiler operation.
The impact of this decreased geothermal heat
exchanger capacity is illustrated in Table 14.22 which
compares the performance of unit heaters and boiler
peaking strategies for the same example case.
As indicated for this example, the boiler design
requires approximately 78% more peaking fuel than the unit
heater design. At the peak condition (0oF), the unit heater
supplies 58% of the heating energy needs of the structure
compared to the boiler's 27%.
321
 Figure 14.9 Heating system flow diagram.

Table 14.21 Typical Supply Water Temperature Reset Schedule and System Performance
_______________________________________________________________________________________________

Outside Air Supply Water Return Geothermal Heat Greenhouse Required %

Temp (oF) Temp (oF) Temp Exchanger Capacity Load Boiler Output Geothermal
25 140 105.0 2,116,000 2,116,000 0 100
20 149 109.6 1,866,000 2,418,000 552,000 77
15 159 114.1 1,627,000 2,721,000 1,092,000 60
10 168 118.3 1,407,000 3,023,000 1,616,000 47
5 177 122.3 1,197,000 3,325,000 2,128,000 36
0 186 126.3 989,000 3,627,000 2,638,000 27
_______________________________________________________________________________________________

Table 14.22 Comparison of Boiler and Unit Heater Peaking Strategies

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

Outside Air Boiler Fuel % Unit Heater Fuel %

Temp (oF) Hrs/Yr (gal Propane) Geothermal (gal Propane) Geothermal
20 352 3,107 77 1,687 88
15 150 2,591 66 1,440 78
10 82 2,085 47 1,180 70
5 39 1,317 36 748 64
0 17 617 27 407 58
9,717 gal 5,462 gal
_______________________________________________________________________________________________

322
Table 14.23 Peaking System Sizing Requirements (60oF Inside, 0oF Outside)
_______________________________________________________________________________________________

Base Load System Unit Heater System Boiler Peaking

Capacity (% of Peak) Peaking Capacity (% of Peak) Capacity (% of Peak)
40 60 93
60 40 73
80 20 27
_______________________________________________________________________________________________

This means that the required capacity of the peaking

boiler is larger than that of the unit heater equipment for the 100

same application. This disparity in required capacity at

the peak load becomes more pronounced as the percentage 98 65/65

of peak load carried by the base load system decreases. For 65/60

example, a system in which the base load capacity is 40% 96

60/60
of the peak would suggest a peaking boiler sized for 60% of
94 60/55
the load. In fact, due to issues discussed above, the boiler
would have to be sized for 93% of the peak. Table 14.23
92
provides a summary of the peaking boiler and unit heater 50 60 70 80 90
sizing requirements for selected base load system % Peak Load as Geothermal

capacities.
Figure 14.11. Unit heater annual energy displaced,
Figures 14.11, 14.12 and 14.13 present heating energy Klamath Falls, OR
displaced for unit heater type peaking systems in three 100
different climates for a variety of inside temperatures set
98
points. Figures 14.14, 14.15 and 14.16 present the same
96 65/65
information for boiler peaking system. In each case in these
65/60
figures, the results are strongly influenced by day setpoint 94

temperature (the first value as indicated in the key of each 92 60/60

figure). Although the percentages of displaced energy 90 60/55

appear to be quite similar to the unit heater values for boiler 88

system, because the heating energy requirement for 86

greenhouses are so high, small percentage differences 50 60 70
% Peak Load as Geothermal
80 90

translate into substantial fuel cost differences.

Figure 14.12. Unit heater annual energy displaced,
100

100
95
98
65/65
96 65/65
90 65/60

94 65/60
60/60
85
92 60/60
60/55

90 60/55
80
50 60 70 80 90
88
% Peak Load as Geothermal

86
Figure 14.10 Unit heater annual energy 50 60 70 80 90
% Peak Load as Geothermal
displaced, Helena, MT.

San Bernardino, CA.

Table 14.24 presents the fuel consumption for 1-acre
greenhouse in the three climates for the same temperature Figure 14.13. Boiler annual energy displaced,
set points as in Figures 14.10 through 14.15. Using the Helena, MT.
Klamath Falls climate data as an example, for a system with
a base load capacity of 60% of the peak and a 60o day/60oF night set point, the boiler system would displace 94.8% of
the annual heating requirements compared to 97.2% for the
unit heater design.

323
Table 14.24 Fuel Consumption for 1-Acre Greenhouse - Btu x 109
_______________________________________________________________________________________________

Helena, MT Klamath Falls, OR San Bernardino, CA

60o/60o 7.36 5.59 1.78
60o/55o 6.37 4.52 1.09
65o/60o 7.59 5.81 1.88
65o/65o 8.69 6.96 2.77
______________________
Notes: Double poly roof, single fiberglass sides, 1 ACH.
To convert to gallons of propane per year, divide by 63,000.
To convert to gallon of fuel oil per year, divide by 93,000.
To convert to therms of natural gas, divide by 70,000.
Conversions assume 70% efficiency.
At $1.00/gal and 70% efficiency, fuel oil cost $10.20/109 Btu and propane
$15.87/109 Btu. At the same efficiency at $0.50 per therm, gas cost $7.14/109 Btu.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________

14.5.4 Cost of Implementation

100

98
Using Figures 14.10 through 14.15 along with Table
96
65/65
14.24, the capital cost for equipment and the annual fuel
94
65/60 cost can be calculated for any application (based on the
92
60/60 three climates for which data is provided). As discussed
90

88 60/55
above, the boiler approach is characterized by lower
86
equipment cost than the unit heater approach, but higher
84
fuel consumption in a given application. As a result of this,
50 60 70 80 90 for a given set of conditions, there will be an optimum
% Peak Load as Geothermal
system from a total cost standpoint.

Calculation of the lowest cost system for a particular

Figure 14.14 Boiler annual energy displaced, application involves consideration of equipment ownership
Klamath Falls, OR. cost (capital cost and financing), fuel costs, equipment
maintenance and fan energy (unit heater system).
100

This is best illustrated with an example. Consider a 1-

95 65/65
acre greenhouse to be built in a moderate climate (Klamath
Falls) in which effluent from an existing facility will be
65/60
90 used as the supply for the new construction. Using the
60/60 effluent will permit the heating system to meet 55% of the
85 60/55 peak load. Propane will be employed for the peaking fuel
and inside temperature set point will be 60oF day and night.
80
50 60 70 80 90 Assuming a double poly roof/single fiberglass con-
% Peak Load as Geothermal
struction, the peak heating load for the structure is deter-
mined to be 2.77 x 106 Btu/hr. As a result, the unit heater
Figure 14.15 Boiler annual energy displaced, peaking equipment would be sized for 0.45 2,770,000 =
San Bernardino, CA. 1,247,000 Btu/hr. The boiler would be sized (interpolating
from Table 14.23) for 0.78 2,770,000 = 2.16 x 106 Btu/hr.
Although these figures seem comparable, attaching From Figure 14.8, the capital cost for the peaking system
fuel consumption values to them clearly indicates the would be $38,000 for the unit heaters and $32,500 for the
difference. Using data from Table 14.24, assuming the use boiler. Based on 15 years at 8% financing, the annual cost
of propane as the fuel, the boiler would require 4,613 gal/yr of the unit heater equipment would be $4,440 and $3,797
and the unit heater system 2,484 gal/yr. for the boiler system.

324
Table 14.25. Summary of Peaking System Costs - Propane Example
_______________________________________________________________________________________________

Unit Heaters Boiler

$ $/ft2 $ $/ft2
Equipment (15 yrs at 8%) 4,440 0.102 3,797 0.087
Maintenance (2% of capital) 760 0.017 650 0.015
Electricity ($0.07/kWh) 269 0.006 0 0
Fuel ($1.00/gal) 4,436 0.102 7,986 0.183
Total 9,905 0.227 12,433 0.285
_______________________________________________________________________________________________

Table 14.26. Summary of Peaking System Annual Costs - Fuel Oil Example
______________________________________________________________________________________________

Unit Heaters Boiler

$ $/ft2 $ $/ft2
Equipment (15 yrs at 8%) 7,243 0.166 4,965 0.114
Maintenance (2% of capital) 1,240 0.029 850 0.020
Electricity ($0.07/kWh) 269 0.006 0 0.000
Fuel ($1.00/gal) 3,005 0.069 5,410 0.124
Total 11,757 0.270 11,225 0.258
_______________________________________________________________________________________________

Using Figures 14.11 and 14.14, along with Table
14.24, the annual propane consumption for the unit
heater system would be 4,436 gallons ((1 - 0.95) 5.59
x 109 63,000) and 7,986 gallons ((1 - 0.91) 5.59 x 109
63,000) for the boiler system.
Assuming a value of 2% of capital cost for
equipment maintenance, the cost for the boiler system
would be $650/yr and for the unit heater system $760/yr.
Fan energy consumption is a function of the size and
number of unit heaters installed. Assuming 10 units at
125,000 Btu/hr each, the fan motor in each unit would be
1/3 hp. For 10 units, 3.3 hp or approximately 2.9 kW
at 85% efficiency. For 1325 hours per year opera-
tion, the electric consumption would amount to 3842
kWh or about $269 at $0.07/kWh.
Figures 14.16, 14.17 and 14.18 summarize the cost
data discussed in the previous section and present the
total costs associated with the peaking system for the
three climates discussed in this report. In each case, the
costs are presented in $/ft2 of greenhouse, a value
commonly used in the greenhouse industry.
Figures 14.16, 14.17 and 14.18 are based on a
constant 60o set point (night and day) in the greenhouse.
Because the set point temperature, and whether or not set
back is used, has a substantial impact upon energy usage,
the above conclusions are valid for the 60o set point only.
For other temperatures calculations, using Figures 14.10
through 14.15 and Table 14.24 should be done.
0.7

0.6
Table 14.25 presents a summary of the costs for the 0.5
UH Oil

two peaking systems in both $ and $/ft2 of greenhouse. BLR oil

0.4

UH prop
In this case, the unit heater design is the clear choice 0.3

due to its lower equipment and fuel costs. If fuel oil was 0.2 BLR prop

to be the peaking fuel in the same situation, the results 0.1

are quite different. Table 14.26 presents the results for 50 55 60 65 70

% Peak Load as Geothermal
75 80

the oil case. fuel oil and propane @ $1.00 per gal.,70 % efficiency, electricity @
$.07/kWh 8%/15 yr financing, no night setback, dbl poly/fibreglass house

In the case of fuel oil, the much higher cost of oil-

fired unit heater equipment tends to be the pivotal cost Figure 14.16 Peaking system cost, Helena, MT.
item. Despite the lower fuel costs for the unit heater
system, the boiler design is the most economic choice.

325
 American Society of Heating, Refrigeration and Air
0.3
Conditioning Engineers, 1977. "1977 Applications,"
0.25 ASHRAE, New York, NY, p. 23.1.
UH Oil
0.2
BLR oil American Society of Heating, Refrigeration and Air
0.15
UH prop
Conditioning Engineers, 1978. "1978 Applica-tions,"
ASHRAE, New York, NY, p. 22.14.
0.1 BLR prop

0.05 American Society of Heating, Refrigeration and Air

50 55 60 65 70 75 80
% Peak Load as Geothermal Conditioning Engineers, 1984. "1984 Applications,"
fuel oil and propane @ $1.00 per gal.,70 % efficiency, electricity @ $.07/kWh,
8%/15yr financing, no night set back, dbl poly/fiberglass house. ASHRAE, New York, NY, pp. 8.4-8.5.

Figure 14.17 Peaking system cost, Klamath Heilman, R. H., 1929. "Surface Heat Transmission,"
Falls, OR. Trans. Am. Soc. Mech. Engrs., pp. 51, 227.

0.25
Khashab, A. M., 1984. "HVAC Systems Estimating
0.2
Manual," McGraw Hill, New York, NY.
UH Oil
0.15
BLR oil
Means, R. S., 1996. "Means Mechanical Cost Data 1986,"
0.1
Robert S. Means Co.
UH prop

0.05 BLR prop Modine Manufacturing Co., 1979. Product Data, Hot
0
Water Unit Heaters Catalog 1-150.1, Modine
50 55 60 65 70 75 80 Manufacturing Co., Racine, WI, pp. 3, 17, 18.
% Peak Load as Geothermal
fuel oil and propane @ $1.00 per gal., 70 % efficiency, electricity @ .07 $/kWh,
8%/15 yr financing, no night set back, double poly/single fiberglass house.
NEPCO Inc., 1984. NEPCO Geothermal Products Price
Bulletin, NEPCO Engineered Energy, Seattle, WA.
Figure 14.18. Peaking system cost, San
Bernardino, CA. Roberts, W. J., et al., 1985. "Energy Conservation for
Commercial Greenhouses," Northeast Regional
Agricultural Engineering Service.
REFERENCES
Roper IBG, undated. International Growers Market
Acme Engineering, 1970. "The Greenhouse Climate Place Catalog, Roper IBG, Wheeling, IL, pp. 14-23.
Control Handbook," Acme Engineering, Muskogee,
OK. Vulcan Radiator Co., 1976. Linovector Element Product
Information, Vulcan Radiator Co., Hartford, CT.
Adlam, T. D., 1947. "Radiant Heating," The Industrial
Press, New York, NY, pp. 415-420 .

326
 Section 5
GREENHOUSE HEATING EQUIPMENT SECTION SPREADSHEET

INTRODUCTION

The following pages include the Greenhouse Heating Equipment Selection Spreadsheet
developed by Kevin Rafferty.

The Greenhouse Heating Equipment Selection Spreadsheet (GHS) is a tool for evaluating the
performance of various types of heating systems for greenhouses. Specifically, seven systems
are considered: unit heaters (UH), finned pipe (FP), bare tube (BT), fan coil units (FC),
combination fan coil/bare tube (FC/BT), low-temperature unit heaters (GLW), and propane unit
heaters (PP).

The spreadsheet is comprised of seven individual areas, the primary input and output and six
additional areas each of which covers one of the system types described above. One portion of
the spreadsheet covers both the fan coil and fan coil/bare tube system input output. After each
area there will be a screenshot of the spreadsheet plus the spreadsheet cell entries used for an
EXCEL spreadsheet.

The spreadsheet cell entry that is a permanent entry or calculation is shown in black. If the cell
entry is blue and italic then it is used for data entry. A value has been added to that cell entry
that matches the screenshot for the given area. This allows for comparison to the screenshot
when entering the program.

The primary input contains 16 individual input items covering supply water temperature,
greenhouse size, construction materials, and economics data. The primary output is divided into
two areas. The first provides information concerning the peak heat loss of the greenhouse. The
second area contains a table which provides information about the economics of the various
types of heating systems for the greenhouse under consideration. Values for both capital and
operating costs are displayed. The far right hand column of the table indicates total annual costs
(owning, maintenance and electrical costs) for each of the systems per square foot of greenhouse
floor area. These values can be compared to determine the lowest cost system for the particular
application. The remaining six sections cover the details of each of the individual systems and
the costs associated with them.

The costs calculated on the individual system screens and finally for the primary output table,
consider only the costs of the terminal heating equipment and branch lines. Because all six
systems are compared at the same supply water temperature and delta T, the costs for the central
equipment and piping would be the same. The only variation in cost for individual systems is for
the terminal equipment itself.

It is necessary to be familiar with greenhouse heating systems and hydronic design before using
this spreadsheet. Users unfamiliar with the equipment are advised to review Section 4 -
Greenhouse Heating Systems prior to using the spreadsheet.

1
PRIMARY INPUT

1. Supply Water Temperature (oF). Enter the supply water temperature which will be
available to the heating equipment in the greenhouse. This temperature will be less than
the well production temperature because of losses in delivery and across the heat
exchanger (assuming an isolation plate heat exchanger is used). If a plate-type heat
exchanger is used, a value of 5 to 10oF less than well temperature should be entered.

2. Delta T (oF). Enter the design temperature drop for the system. All heating equipment is
compared in the spreadsheet using this temperature drop.

3. Floor Area (ft2). Enter the floor area of the greenhouse to be evaluated. If the
development is very large, it may be useful to break the total area up into smaller units.

4. Wall Area (ft2). Enter the total wall area of the greenhouse under consideration. This
value is used to calculate heat loss for the structure.

5. Wall "U" (Btu/hr ft2 oF). Enter the overall U value for the wall material of the
greenhouse. This value is used to calculate heat loss for the structure.

6. Roof Area (ft2). Enter the total surface area of the roof of the greenhouse. This value is
used in the calculation of the structure's heat loss.

7. Roof "U" (Btu/hr ft2 oF). Enter the overall U value for the roof covering material. This
value is used in the calculation of the structure's heat loss.

8. Inside Design Temperature (oF). Enter the inside temperature to be maintained under
maximum heating load conditions. This value is used in the determination of design
temperature difference for heat loss calculation.

9. Outside Design Temperature (oF). Enter the outside temperature for which the heating
system will be designed. This value in conjunction with Input #9 is used to calculate the
design temperature difference for heat loss calculations.

10. Average Ceiling Height (ft). Enter the value which best reflects the average ceiling
height inside the greenhouse. This figure is used in the determination of the volume of
the house for infiltration heat loss calculation.

11. Air Change Rate (changes/hr). Enter the value for the number of air changes per hour
appropriate to the type of greenhouse construction planned. This value is used in the
calculation of the infiltration heating load.

12. Degree Days. Enter the number of heating degree days appropriate to the climate where
the greenhouse is to be located. This value is used to determine the number of full load
hours over which the heating system will operate. Operating hours are then used in the
determination of electricity use (fans) for the system.

2
13. Electric Rate ($/kWh). Enter the electric rate which will be appropriate to the greenhouse
operation. This value is used in the calculation of annual electrical cost for the heating
system.

14. Interest Rate (as decimal). Enter the rate at which purchase of the heating system will be
made (mortgage rate). This value is used in the calculation of the owning costs of the
system.

15. Loan Term (years). Enter the number of years for which the financing will run (mortgage
term). This value is used in the calculation of owning cost for the system.

16. Labor Rate. Enter the cost per hour of labor to be used for installation of the equipment.

PRIMARY OUTPUT

1. Peak Heat Loss (Btu/hr). This is the design heat loss for the greenhouse. It is the value
which the heating system must supply to maintain inside temperature at the design
outdoor temperature condition.

= Wall Loss + Roof Loss + Infiltration

2. Wall Loss (Btu/hr). This is the heat loss associated with the walls of the greenhouse.

= Wall Area * (Inside Design Temperature - Outside Design Temperature) * Wall "U"

3. Roof Loss (Btu/hr). This is the heat loss associated with the roof of the greenhouse.

= Roof Area * (Inside Design Temperature - Outside Design Temperature) * Roof "U"

4. Infiltration Loss (Btu/hr). This is the heat loss associated with the leakage of cold air into
the greenhouse.

= (Greenhouse Floor Area * Average Ceiling Height * Air Change Rate) * .018 * (Inside
Design Temperature - Outside Design Temperature)

5. Loss per Square Foot (Btu/hr ft2). This is the peak heat loss divided by floor area.

= Peak Heat Loss Floor Area

The following section is the primary output of the spreadsheet. It compares the overall costs for
seven different heating systems: Unit Heaters (UH), Finned Pipe (FP), Bare Tubing (BT), Fan
Coil (FC), combination Fan Coil/Bare Tubing (FC/BT), Low-Temperature Unit Heaters (GLW),
and Gas-Fired Unit Heaters (GUH). In each case, the capital cost per square foot is displayed
followed by the annual cost (again per square foot of floor area) of maintenance, electricity and

3
ownership. The three annual costs are then summed to arrive at a total annual cost per square
foot. Each column is described individually below:

System Type. As described above.

Capital Cost. This is the capital cost for only the terminal equipment of the heating system.
Since the spreadsheet is arranged to compare the system using a common T and supply water
temperature, the cost of the main mechanical equipment (circulating pump, heat exchanger and
loop piping) would be the same for all systems. As a result, these costs are not included in the
calculation. Only the costs of the actual heating devices are included.

The cost includes both equipment itself, labor for installation, and branch supply and hot water
lines for each type of system. The total of these costs is divided by the greenhouse floor area to
arrive at the displayed value. Details of the cost calculation are covered in the individual system
screens. Equipment and labor costs are calculated separately and combined with a 20%
overhead/contingency factor to arrive at the total cost.

Annual Maintenance. This value is the calculated maintenance cost for each system. Generally,
mechanical equipment is calculated at 2% of capital cost and piping at 1% of capital cost. The
total maintenance costs are then divided by the floor area to arrive at the displayed value.

Annual Electrical Costs. This is the cost of operating the fans associated with equipment in
which fans are used (UH, FC, FC/BP and GLW). Fan horsepower is determined using
manufacturers data and it is assumed the fans are cycled with the unit. (See individual system
screens.) This horsepower is then converted into an electrical kW and multiplied by the number
of units and the number of full load hours ([Degree Days * 24] Design Temperature
Difference) to arrive at total annual electrical use. This figure multiplied by the electric rate
(Input #13) yields a value for annual electric cost. This value is divided by the floor area of the
greenhouse to arrive at the displayed value.

Annual Owning Cost. The value displayed is the capital cost for the system multiplied by a
capital cost recovery factor and divided by the floor area of the greenhouse. Stated another way,
it is the annual mortgage payment divided by the floor area. The capital cost is calculated at
each system screen. The capital cost recovery factor is calculated based upon the interest rate
(Input #14) and loan term (Input #15) specified in the input.

Total Annual Cost. This figure is the sum of the annual maintenance, annual electric and annual
owning costs for each system. It is the basis for comparison of one system to another. The
lower the annual cost per square foot, the more economical the heating system.

4
INPUT / OUTUT SCREENSHOT

GREENHOUSE HEATING EQUIPMENT SELECTION SPREADSHEET

INPUT
1. Supply Water Temp 150 F
2. Delta t 40 F
3. Floor Area 44000 sqft
4. Wall area 4380 sqft
5. Wall "U" 1.00 btu/hrsqft
6. Roof area 52800 sqft
7. Roof "U" 1.00 btu/hrsqft
8. Inside Design Temp 65 F
9. Outside Design Temp. 10 F
10. Average Ceiling Height 10 ft
11. Air Change Rate 0.75 changes/hr
12. Degree Days 4500
13. Elec Rate 0.05 $/kwh
14. Interest Rate as decimal 0.08
15. Loan Term 15 years
16. Labor Rate 35.00 $/hr

OUTPUT

1. Peak Heat Loss 3471600 btu/hr

2. Wall Loss 240900 btu/hr
3. Roof Loss 2904000 btu/hr
4. Infiltration 326700 btu/hr
5. Loss per sq ft 78.90 btu/hrsqft

CAPITAL ---- ANNUAL COSTS ($/SQFT YR)-------

System COST Annual Annual Annual Total
Type $/sqft Maint. Elec Owning Annual

UH 1.475 0.018 0.019 0.172 0.209

FP 4.684 0.015 0.000 0.547 0.562
BP 0.972 0.005 0.000 0.114 0.119
FC 1.257 0.017 0.016 0.147 0.180
FC/BP 1.235 0.013 0.003 0.144 0.160
GLW 1.170 0.017 0.016 0.137 0.169
PROP 0.863 0.015 0.010 0.101 0.127

FLH 1,963.64
%flh 64.80 24.24

INPUT / OUTUT SPREADSHEET CELL ENTRIES

A:B1: GREENHOUSE HEATING EQUIPMENT SELECTION SPREADSHEET

5
A:B3: INPUT

A:A4: 1.
A:B4: Supply Water Temp
A:E4: 150
A:F4: F

A:A5: 2.
A:B5: Delta t
A:E5: 40
A:F5: F

A:A6: 3.
A:B6: Floor Area
A:E6: 44000
A:F6: sqft

A:A7: 4.
A:B7: Wall area
A:E7: 4380
A:F7: sqft

A:A8: 5.
A:B8: Wall U
A:E8: 1
A:F8: btu/hrsqft

A:A9: 6.
A:B9: Roof area
A:E9: 52800
A:F9: sqft

A:A10: 7.
A:B10: Roof U
A:E10: 1
A:F10: btu/hrsqft

A:A11: 8.
A:B11: Inside Design Temp
A:E11: 65
A:F11: F

A:A12: 9.
A:B12: Outside Design Temp
A:E12: 10
A:F12: F

A:A13: 10.
A:B13: Average Ceiling Height
A:E13: 10
A:F13: ft

6
A:A14: 11.
A:B14: Air Change Rate
A:E14: 0.75
A:F14: changes/hr

A:A15: 12.
A:B15: Degree Days
A:E15: 4500

A:A16: 13.
A:B16: Elec Rate
A:E16: 0.05
A:F16: $/kWh

A:A17: 14.
A:B17: Interest Rate (as decimal)
A:E17: 0.08

A:A18: 15.
A:B18: Loan Term
A:E18: 15
A:F18: years

A:A19: 16.
A:B19: Labor Rate
A:E19: 35
A:F19: $/hr

A:B21: OUTPUT

A:A23: 1.
A:B23: Peak Heat Loss
A:E23: =E24+E25+E26
A:F23: btu/hr

A:A24: 2.
A:B24: Wall Loss
A:E24: =E7*(E11-E12)*E8
A:F24: btu/hr

A:A25: 3.
A:B25: Roof Loss
A:E25: =E9*(E11-E12)*E10
A:F25: btu/hr

A:A26: 4.
A:B26: Infiltration
A:E26: =(E6*E13/60)*1.08*(E11-E12)*E14
A:F26: btu/hr

A:A27: 5.
A:B27: Loss per sq ft
A:E27: =E23/E6
A:F27: btu/hrsqft

7
A:C32: CAPITAL
A:D32: ANNUAL COSTS ($/SQFT YR)-
A:B33: System
A:C33: COST
A:D33: Annual
A:E33: Annual
A:F33: Annual
A:G33: Total

A:B34: Type
A:C34: $/sqft
A:D34: Maint.
A:E34: Elec
A:F34: Owning
A:G34: Annual

A:B36: UH
A:C36: =M23*1.2/E6
A:D36: =M21*0.02/E6
A:E36: =M13*M7*C44*E16/E6
A:F36: =(C36*((1+E17)^E18)*(E17/(((1+E17)^E18)-1)))
A:G36: =D36+E36+F36

A:B37: FP
A:C37: =((S18+(S19*E19)))*1.2/E6
A:D37: =S18*0.01/E6
A:E37: 0
A:F37: =(C37*((1+E17)^E18)*(E17/(((1+E17)^E18)-1)))
A:G37: =D37+E37+F37

A:B38: BP
A:C38: =Z27*1.2/E6
A:D38: =Z25*0.01/E6
A:E38: 0
A:F38: =(C38*((1+E17)^E18)*(E17/(((1+E17)^E18)-1)))
A:G38: =D38+E38+F38

A:B39: FC
A:C39: =AF21*1.2/E6
A:D39: =AF25*0.02/E6
A:E39: =AF29*AF7*C44*E16/E6
A:F39: =(C39*((1+E17)^E18)*(E17/(((1+E17)^E18)-1)))
A:G39: =D39+E39+F39

A:B40: FC/BP
A:C40: =(AG21*1.2/E6)
A:D40: =((AG25*0.02)+(Z12*AG19*0.01))/E6
A:E40: =(AG29*AG7*C44*E16/E6)*((100-C45)/100)
A:F40: =(C40*((1+E17)^E18)*(E17/(((1+E17)^E18)-1)))
A:G40: =D40+E40+F40

8
A:B41: GLW
A:C41: =((AM17+(AM18*E19)))*1.2/E6
A:D41: =AM17*0.02/E6
A:E41: =((AM12*AM6/E6)*C44)*E16
A:F41: =(C41*((1+E17)^E18)*(E17/(((1+E17)^E18)-1)))
A:G41: =D41+E41+F41

A:B42: PROP
A:C42: =AR17*1.2/E6
A:D42: =(AR14*0.03)/E6
A:E42: =(AR6*AR13*C44*E16*((100-E45)/100)
A:F42: =(C42*((1+E17)^E18)*(E17/(((1+E17)^E18)-1)))
A:G42: =D42+E42+F42

A:B44: FLH
A:C44: =E15*24/(E11-E12)

A:B45: %flh
A:C45: =((AG6-10)*1.56)+18
A:E45: +((AR6-10)*1.56)+18

UNIT HEATERS

The general approach to using the Unit Heaters calculation is to first specify a number of units.
The spreadsheet then calculates a required capacity per unit based on the number selected.
Check to make sure that this capacity is equal to or less than the corrected capacity of the largest
unit listed in the table below. If the required capacity is greater, increase the number of units.
The spreadsheet then calculates the installation labor hours per unit, cost per unit and kW per
unit for the size unit selected. The spreadsheet then uses the output from the sheet to generate
the values for annual costs shown in the primary output.

Input

1. Number of Units. Enter the number of units desired for space heating. For greenhouses
over 80 ft on the long dimension, units should be placed at both ends of the house.
Spacing between individual units should not be more than 50 ft. Under certain
conditions, the number of units will be affected by the capacity available from the largest
unit.

Output

Capacity per Unit. This figure is the output required per unit based on the peak heating load of
the greenhouse and the number of units specified in Input #1. It is important to verify that the
required capacity does not exceed the corrected capacity of the largest unit (see table at bottom
of screen). If this is the case, the number of units selected must be raised until the required
capacity is equal to or less than the corrected capacity of the largest unit.

Cost of Selected Unit. The spreadsheet selects the cost of the unit that best matches the required
capacity per unit, from the table below.

9
Hours per Unit. The spreadsheet selects the labor hours for the selected unit from the table
below.

kW per Unit. The spreadsheet selects the kW/unit value listed for the unit size selected. This
value is used to calculate the electrical costs shown in the primary output.

Indoor Design Temperature. Displayed for convenience. Value is taken from Primary Input #8.

Supply Water Temperature. Displayed for convenience. Value is taken from Primary Input #1.

Delta T. Displayed for convenience. Value is taken from Primary Input #2.

Temperature Correction Factor. Calculated from manufacturer's data. Used to calculate

combined correction factor below.

Flow Correction Factor. Calculated from manufacturer's data. Used to calculate combined
correction factor below.

Combined Correction Factor. Temperature Correction Factor * Flow Correction Factor. Used
for calculating corrected unit heater capacities in the table below.

Total Equipment Cost. This is the total cost of the equipment, including labor, for the number of
units specified. Calculated as (Cost of Selected Unit * Number of Units). This figure is used for
calculation of values shown in primary output (first screen).

Total Hours. Total labor time required for installation of the number of units specified.
Calculated as: Number of Units * Hours per Unit. See note at bottom of table.

Total Cost. Value shown is the sum of total Equipment cost plus total hours times cost per hour
entered at Input #16.

The table shown on the unit heater screen lists the rated capacity (at 200o EWT and 60o EAT) for
several models. Using the correction factor calculated above, the rated capacity is reduced to
reflect the specified conditions of water temperature and delta T. Costs for the unit heaters and
branch lines are listed under the Material Cost column. Installation man-hours are listed for each
unit. Finally, the electrical kW is listed for each unit. Unit heater costs and labor include
allowance for: 20 ft of 1-in. copper pipe, 2 1-in. ball valves, 1-in. zone valve 24V wire and
thermostat, 115 V wiring, air vent and 2 1-in. unions. $255 material, 7.1 hours labor.

10
UNIT HEATERS SCREENSHOT

UNIT HEATERS

1) # of units 24

Required Capacity Per Unit 144650 Btu/hr

Cost of Selected Unit 1,630

Hours per Unit 18
KW per unit 0.35

Indoor Design Temp 65 F

Supply Water Temp 150 F
Delta T 40 F
Temp Correction Factor 0.61
Flow Correction Factor 0.85
Combined Correction 0.52
Total Equipment Cost 39120 $
Total Hours 427.2
Total Cost 54072

Material
Rated Corrected Cost* man-hours KW/unit

15700 8170 620 8.70 0.03

24500 12749 620 8.90 0.06
29000 15090 670 9.10 0.06
47000 24457 720 9.40 0.09
63000 32783 755 9.80 0.09
81000 42149 835 10.00 0.11
90000 46832 945 10.30 0.23
133000 69208 1005 11.10 0.23
139000 72330 1100 11.70 0.35
198000 103031 1180 13.50 0.35
224000 116561 1630 15.10 0.35
273000 142058 1630 17.80 0.35
note: unit heater costs and labor include allowance
for 20 ft 1" copper piping, 2-1" ball valves, 1"zone valve

UNIT HEATERS SPREADSHEET CELL ENTRIES

A:J5: UNIT HEATERS

A:J7: 1) # of units
A:M7: 24

11
A:J9: Required Capacity Per Unit
A:M9: =E23/M7
A:N9: Btu/hr

A:J11: Cost of Selected Unit

A:M11:
=IF(M9>J30,IF(M9>J31,IF(M9>J32,IF(M9>J33,IF(M9>J34,IF(M9>J35,IF(M9>J36,IF(M9>J37,IF(M9>J38,I
F(M9>J39,IF(M9>J40,K41,K40),K39),K38),K37),K36),K35),K34),K33),K32),K31),K30)

A:J12: Hours per Unit

A:M12:
=IF(M9>J30,IF(M9>J31,IF(M9>J32,IF(M9>J33,IF(M9>J34,IF(M9>J35,IF(M9>J36,IF(M9>J37,IF(M9>J38,I
F(M9>J39,IF(M9>J40,L41,L40),L39),L38),L37),L36),L35),L34),L33),L32),L31),L30)

A:J13: KW per unit

A:M13:
=IF(M9>J30,IF(M9>J31,IF(M9>J32,IF(M9>J33,IF(M9>J34,IF(M9>J35,IF(M9>J36,IF(M9>J37,IF(M9>J38,I
F(M9>J39,IF(M9>J40,M41,M40),M39),M38),M37),M36),M35),M34),M33),M32),M31),M30)

A:J15: Indoor Design Temp

A:M15: =E11
A:N15: F

A:J16: Supply Water Temp

A:M16: =E4
A:N16: F

A:J17: Delta T
A:M17: =E5
A:N17: F

A:J18: Temp Correction Factor

A:M18: =(0.36-((M15-50)*0.00735))+((M16-100)*0.0072)

A:J19: Flow Correction Factor

A:M19: =1-((M17-20)*0.00733)

A:J20: Combined Correction

A:M20: =M18*M19

A:J21: Total Equipment Cost

A:M21: =M7*M11
A:N21: $

A:J22: Total Hours

A:M22: =M12*M7

A:J23: Total Cost

A:M23: M21+(E19*M22)

A:K27: Material
A:I28: Rated
A:J28: Corrected
A:K28: Cost*
A:L28: man-hours
A:M28: KW/unit

12
 A:I30: 15700
A:J30: =M$20*I30
A:K30: 620
A:L30: 8.70
A:M30: 0.033

A:I31: 24500
A:J31: =M$20*I31
A:K31: 620
A:L31: 8.9
A:M31: 0.06

A:I32: 29000
A:J32: =M$20*I32
A:K32: 670
A:L32: 9.10
A:M32: 0.06

A:I33: 47000
A:J33: =M$20*I33
A:K33: 720
A:L33: 9.4
A:M33: 0.088

A:I34: 63000
A:J34: =M$20*I34
A:K34: 755
A:L34: 9.8
A:M34: 0.088

A:I35: 81000
A:J35: =M$20*I35
A:K35: 835
A:L35: 10.0
A:M35: 0.112

A:I36: 90000
A:J36: =M$20*I36
A:K36: 945
A:L36: 10.3
A:M36: 0.226

A:I37: 133000
A:J37: =M$20*I37
A:K37: 1005
A:L37: 11.1
A:M37: 0.226

A:I38: 139000
A:J38: =M$20*I38
A:K38: 1100
A:L38: 11.70
A:M38: 0.352

13
 A:I39: 198000
A:J39: =M$20*I39
A:K39: 1180
A:L39: 13.50
A:M39: 0.352

A:I40: 224000
A:J40: =M$20*I40
A:K40: 1630
A:L40: 15.10
A:M40: 0.352

A:I41: 273000
A:J41: =M$20*I41
A:K41: 1630
A:L41: 17.80
A:M41: 0.352

A:I42: note: unit heater costs and labor include allowance

A:I43: for 20 ft 1" copper piping, 2-1" ball valves, 1"zone valve

FINNED PIPE

Input

1. Number of Circuits. Enter the number of individual circuits of finned pipe to be

installed in the greenhouse. The number of circuits should be selected to result in a
velocity (Output #7) of between .75 and 3.5 ft per second.

Output

Average Water Temperature. Ratings for finned pipe are based upon average water temperature.
This value is calculated from the Supply Water Temperature and delta T specified in the primary
unit.

Inside Design Temperature. Displayed for convenience. Taken from primary input.

Required Length. The total length of finned pipe required to meet the peak heating load based
on the corrected capacity per foot at the specified water temperature.

Temperature Correction Factor. Calculated from the average water temperature and inside
design temperature. This value is used to correct the rated capacity of the finned element (shown
in the table) to the corrected capacity appropriate to your particular application.

Length per Circuit. Length calculated from the number of circuits specified and the total length
required. You may wish to adjust the number of circuits to arrive at a length per circuit which is
a multiple of the dimension of the greenhouse in which the pipe is to be installed.

14
Flow per Circuit. Value is arrived at by dividing the total flow rate by the number of circuits
specified in Input #1.

Velocity. The water velocity which results from the circuiting specified (Input #1) and the flow
per circuit. Should be between .75 and 3.5 ft per second.

Peak Flow. Peak flow is based upon the peak heat load for the greenhouse and the delta T
specified in the primary input section (#2).

Total Equipment Cost. Total cost for the finned pipe. Calculated for the total length * cost per
foot from table below.

Total Hours. The total number of hours required for installation of the required length of finned
pipe appearing in Output #3.

Total Cost. Value shown is the sum of the total equipment cost plus total labor hours times he
cost per hour entered at Input #16.

FINNED PIPE SCREENSHOT

FINNED PIPE

1.) # of Circuits 10.00

Average Water Temp 130 F

Inside Design Temp 65 F
Required Length 7702 ft
Temp Correction factor 0.31
Length per Circuit 770 ft
Flow per Circuit 17.36 gpm
Velocity 3.75 ft/sec
Peak Flow 174 gpm
Total Equipment Cost 63929 $
Total Hours 3081
Total Cost 171762

size rated crctd Cost/lf hours

1.25 1440 450.72 8.30 0.40

FINNED PIPE SPREADSHEET CELL ENTRIES

A:P5: FINNED PIPE

A:P7: 1.) # of Circuits
A:S7: 10

15
A:P10: Average Water Temp
A:S10: =M16-(M17/2)
A:T10: F

A:P11: Inside Design Temp

A:S11: =M15
A:T11: F

A:P12: Required Length

A:S12: =E23/R24
A:T12: ft

A:P13: Temp Correction factor

A:S13: =(0.1+((S10-100)*0.0071))+(0.008*(65-M15))

A:P14: Length per Circuit

A:S14: =S12/S7
A:T14: ft

A:P15: Flow per Circuit

A:S15: =S17/S7
A:T15: gpm

A:P16: Velocity
A:S16: =(S15/(7.49*60))/(((((1.1*P24)/2)^2)*3.14)/144)
A:T16: ft/sec

A:P17: Peak Flow

A:S17: =E23/(500*M17)
A:T17: gpm

A:P18: Total Cost

A:S18: =S24*S12
A:T18: $

A:P19: Total Hours

A:S19: =S12*T24

A:P23: size
A:Q23: rated
A:R23: Corrected
A:S23: Cost/lf
A:T23: hours

A:P25: 1.25
A:Q25: 1440
A:R25: =S13*q24
A:S25: 8.3
A:T25: 0.4

16
BARE TUBE

General Procedure

The bare tube section involves an iterative approach to arrive at the correct system design.
Information concerning the tubing (size, length, emissivity and cost) is input along with a trial
water flow rate (per tube circuit). Next the output is checked for agreement between the
calculated T (Output #7) and the T specified in the primary input (#2). The sheet is rerun
with new flow rates until the output #7 value agrees with the primary input #2.

Depending upon the application, it may not be possible to make bare tube calculations for larger
Ts. To evaluate the accuracy of the calculated delta T, check the delta T values in the table at
the bottom of the screen.

Input

1. Tube OD. Enter the outside diameter of the tube to be used for the system. Most
systems employ polyethylene tubing of 1 in. or less for heating purposes.

2. Water Flow. Enter the trial water flow for each tubing circuit. This value will have to
be adjusted several times in order to arrive at a calculated T (output #7) equal to the
system T specified in the primary input section (#2).

3. Emissivity. Enter the emissivity of the tubing used for heating. This value is used in the
calculation of the radiant tube output.

4. Horizontal (1.016) Vertical (1.235). Enter the value appropriate to the installation of the
tubing. Most systems install the tubing horizontally on the floor or under the benches.

5. Tube Length. Enter the length of each circuit of tubing. Generally, circuits should be
less than about 600 feet to limit water side pressure drop. It is also useful to make the
length a multiple of the greenhouse dimension over which the tubing will be installed.
For example, if the greenhouse length is 100 ft a 400 tube length would allow for 4
passes over the 100 ft dimension.

6. Tube Unit Cost. Enter the cost per foot for the tubing to be used in the system. Be
careful to consider the temperature at which the system will be working. Polyethylene
which is relatively inexpensive is serviceable to approximately 150oF. EPDM which is
more expensive must be used for temperatures above this.

Output

Air Temperature. Displayed for convenience. This value is taken from the inside design
temperature (primary input #8).

17
Entering Water Temperature. Displayed for convenience. This value is taken from the supply
water temperature (primary input #1).

Total Unit Output. This is the calculated heat output per foot of tubing. It is the sum of outputs
4 and 5, and is used to calculate the total number of feet of pipe required.

Convective Unit Output. Calculated heat output per foot of pipe due to convection.

Radiant Unit Output. Calculated heat output per foot of pipe due to radiation.

Total Output. Calculated output per circuit. Total unit output * tube length (Input #5).

Delta T. Calculated temperature drop through each circuit. The screen should be re-run with
new water flow (Input #2) until the Delta T value shown agrees with the Delta T specified in the
primary input section (#2). Delta T is calculated by an iterative process in the table shown
below.

Outlet Temperature. Temperature at outlet of each circuit. Calculated from supply water
temperature (Primary Input #1) minus Delta T (Output #7).

Total Length. Calculated tubing length requirement based on peak load (Primary Output #1)
divided by Total Unit Output (Output #3).

Number of Loops. Calculated by dividing the total length by the tubing length per circuit (Input
#5).

Total Cost. Cost for tubing. Calculated by multiplying Total Length (Output # 9) times tubing
cost (Input #6). Used for calculation in Primary Output section.

Total Hours. Man-hours required for installation of tubing. Calculated by multiplying .0025
hrs/ft times the total length requirement.

The table which appears at the bottom of the Bare Pipe screen is used to calculate the unit
convective output, unit radiant output, total output per foot, total output per loop and delta T
values which appear in the outputs above. These calculations are performed in an iterative
fashion in which the average water temperature from the previous run is used as the input value
for the subsequent run. In this way, the spreadsheet is able to "zero in" on the actual output
values. A total of 5 runs are made to produce the values. In some cases (very long circuits or
very low water flow rates), the accuracy of this calculation may be poor.

18
BARE TUBING SCREENSHOT

BARE TUBING

1.) Tube OD 0.75 inches

2.) Water flow 0.60 gpm
3.) Emmisivity 0.90
4.) Horiz (1.016) Vert (1.235) 1.016
5.) Tube length 481 ft
6.) Tube unit cost 0.17 $/lf

Delta T 40.2 F

Air temperature 65 F
Ent. water temp p. 150 F
Total unit output 25.1 btu/hr lf
Convective unit output 12.2 btu/hr lf
Radiant unit output 12.9 btu/hr lf
Total output 12059
Outlet temperature 109.8 F
Total length 138470 ft
Number of loops 288
Total equipment cost 23540 $
Total hours 346 hrs
Total Cost 35656

Run 1 Run 2 Run 3 Run 4 Run 5 Run 6

sqft/lf 0.2 122.3 132.9 129.0 130.4 129.9
surf temp 144.1 118.3 128.1 124.5 125.9 125.4
unit conv 86.3 52.7 65.1 60.5 62.2 61.6
unit rad 89.5 56.2 68.4 63.8 65.5 64.9
btu/hrlf 34.5 21.4 26.2 24.4 25.1 24.8
btu/hr 16599.6 10281.1 12604.2 11737.7 12059.2 11939.7
delta t 55.3 34.3 42.0 39.1 40.2 39.8

BARE TUBING SPREADSHEET CELL ENTRIES

A:V5: BARE TUBING

A:V7: 1. Tube OD
A:Z7: 0.75
A:AA7: inches

A:V8: 2. Water flow

A:Z8: 0.60
A:AA8: gpm
A:V9: 3. Emmisivity
A:Z9: 0.90

A:V10: 4. Horiz (1.016) Vert(1.235)

A:Z10: 1.016

19
A:V11: 5. Tube length
A:Z11: 481
A:AA11: ft

A:V12: 6. Tube unit cost

A:Z12: 0.17
A:AA12 : $/lf

A:V14: Delta T
A:Z14: =AA37
A:AA14: F

A:V16: Air temperature

A:Z16: =M15
A:AA16: F

A:V17: Ent. water temp

A:Z17: =M16
A:AA17: F

A:V18: Total unit output

A:Z18: =AA35
A:AA18: btu/hr lf

A:V19: Convective unit output

A:Z19: =W31*AA33
A:AA19: btu/hr lf

A:V20: Radiant unit output

A:Z20: =W31*AA34
A:AA20: btu/hr lf

A:V21: Total output

A:Z21: =AA36

A:V22: Outlet temperature

A:Z22: =Z17-Z14
A:AA22: F

A:V23: Total length

A:Z23: =E23/Z18
A:AA23: ft

A:V24: Number of loops

A:Z24: =Z23/Z11

A:V25: Total equipment cost

A:Z25: =Z23*Z12
A:AA25: $

A:V26: Total hours

A:Z26: =0.0025*Z23
A:AA26: hrs

20
A:V27: Total Cost
A:Z27: =Z25+(Z26*E19)

A:W30: Run 1
A:X30: Run 2
A:Y30: Run 3
A:Z30: Run 4
A:AA30: Run 5
A:AB30: Run 6

A:V31: sqft/lf
A:W31: =((Z7)*3.14*12)/144
A:X31: =Z17-(W37/2)
A:Y31: =Z17-(X37/2)
A:Z31: =Z17-(Y37/2)
A:AA31: =Z17-(Z37/2)
A:AB31: =Z17-(AA37/2)

A:V32: surf temp

A:W32: =Z17-((Z17-Z16)*0.07)
A:X32: =X31-((X31-Z16)*0.07)
A:Y32: =Y31-((Y31-Z16)*0.07)
A:Z32: =Z31-((Z31-Z16)*0.07)
A:AA32: =AA31-((AA31-Z16)*0.07)
A:AB32: =AB31-((AB31-Z16)*0.07)

A:V33: unit conv

A:W33: =Z10*((1/(Z7/1))^0.2)*((1/(460+((Z16+Z17)/2)))^0.181)*((W32-Z16)^1.266)
A:X33: =Z10*((1/(Z7/1))^0.2)*((1/(460+((Z16+X32)/2)))^0.181)*((X32-Z16)^1.266)
A:Y33: =Z10*((1/(Z7/1))^0.2)*((1/(460+((Z16+Y32)/2)))^0.181)*((Y32-Z16)^1.266)
A:Z33: =Z10*((1/(Z7/1))^0.2)*((1/(460+((Z16+Z32)/2)))^0.181)*((Z32-Z16)^1.266)
A:AA33: =Z10*((1/(Z7/1))^0.2)*((1/(460+((Z16+AA32)/2)))^0.181)*((AA32-Z16)^1.266)
A:AB33: =Z10*((1/(Z7/1))^0.2)*((1/(460+((Z16+AB32)/2)))^0.181)*((AB32-Z16)^1.266)

A:V34: unit rad

A:W34: =1.74E-09*Z9*(((460+W32)^4)-((460+Z16)^4))
A:X34: =1.74E-09*Z9*(((460+X32)^4)-((460+Z16)^4))
A:Y34: =1.74E-09*Z9*(((460+Y32)^4)-((460+Z16)^4))
A:Z34: =1.74E-09*Z9*(((460+Z32)^4)-((460+Z16)^4))
A:AA34: =1.74E-09*Z9*(((460+AA32)^4)-((460+Z16)^4))
A:AB34: =1.74E-09*Z9*(((460+AB32)^4)-((460+Z16)^4))

A:V35: btu/hrlf
A:W35: =(W33+W34)*W31
A:X35: =(X33+X34)*W31
A:Y35: =(Y33+Y34)*W31
A:Z35: =(Z33+Z34)*W31
A:AA35: =(AA33+AA34)*W31
A:AB35: =(AB33+AB34)*W31

21
A:V36: btu/hr
A:W36: =W35*Z11
A:X36: =X35*Z11
A:Y36: =Y35*Z11
A:Z36: =Z35*Z11
A:AA36: =AA35*Z11
A:AB36: =AB35*Z11

A:V37: delta t
A:W37: =W36/(500*Z8)
A:X37: =X36/(500*Z8)
A:Y37: =Y36/(500*Z8)
A:Z37: =Z36/(500*Z8)
A:AA37: =AA36/(500*Z8)
A:AB37: =AB36/(500*Z8)

FAN COIL UNITS

The fan coil sheet contains 2 columns of input/output data: one for the fan coil system (left) and
one for the Fan Coil/Bare Tube system (right). The following relates only to the fan coil system.

The general procedure for the fan coil system is to specify a number of units and a leaving air
temperature. The entering and leaving water temperatures along with the inside air temperature
are carried over from the primary input section. Using this input, the spreadsheet calculates the
required air flow and coil configuration (rows and fins per inch). The number of rows is rounded
off (for which ever fin spacing is closest to a whole number). Using the calculated nominal ton
value, figures for unit cost and man-hours are selected from the nearest size unit in the table at
the bottom of the screen. The spreadsheet then calculates the total equipment and labor costs and
transfers these values to the primary output section.

Input

1. % of Load as Fan Coil. Not used for fan coil only systems,

2. Number of Units. Enter the number of units required. This figure will usually be less
than the number of unit heaters specified. Fan coil equipment is capable of higher
capacity per unit and is much less effected by low supply water temperature than unit
heater equipment.

3. Leaving Air Temperature. Enter the temperature of the air leaving the fan coil unit. If
poly tube distribution is used, a maximum of 135oF should be entered for this value. The
figure, however, must also be considered in light of the supply water temperature
available. A supply air temperature of approximately 20oF less than the supply water
temperature is generally possible with 4-row coils or less. The pricing data contained in
the spreadsheet assumes that a maximum of 4-row coils would be used. For a given
supply water temperature, as the required supply air temperature is increased the coil
capacity in terms of more rows and closer fin spacing must be increased.

22
Output

Capacity per Unit. This is the calculated capacity required per unit based on the number of units
specified (#1 above) and the peak heating load.

Entering Water Temperature. Displayed for convenience. Taken from Primary Input #1.

Nominal Tons. The calculated capacity in nominal tons of the fan coil units. Cost data for fan
coil units is indexed to the air flow and cooling capacity. As a result, the nominal ton value is
calculated in order to determine equipment cost.

Rows Required. Hot water coils transfer heat to the air based on the temperature difference
between the water and the air, and the quantity of heat transfer area. Area is a function of the
number of rows of tubes the coil has and the spacing of the fins. Shown here are the required
rows of tubes at 3 different fin spacings which a coil must have to meet the specified
performance. As mentioned elsewhere, the cost data the program uses assumes that a maximum
of 4 rows will be used. If the rows required displays a value of greater than 4 rows, leaving air
temperature should be reduced to decrease coil surface area requirements.

Cost per Unit. The spreadsheet selects the cost per unit for the unit necessary to meet the
required capacity. Values are found in the table at the bottom of the screen.

Labor Hours. The spreadsheet selects the man-hours labor for installation of the unit selected
from the table.

Foot of Tube Required. The length of tubing required to meet the portion of the load met by the
tubes (1-Input #1). The figure displayed includes both labor and material for the tubing.
Calculation not required for fan coil only systems.

Cost of Tubing. Cost for tubing material and installation for the length calculated above.
Calculation not required for fan coil only systems.

Total Cost. Values shown is sum of the total equipment cost plus the total labor hours times the
cost per hour entered at Input #19. Also includes tubing cost for FC/BT systems.

Leaving Water Temperature. Displayed for convenience. Taken from Supply Water
Temperatures (Primary Input #1) minus Delta T (Primary Input #2).

Indoor Design Temperature. Displayed for convenience. Taken from Primary Input #8).

Air Flow per Unit. The calculated air flow required at the specified supply air temperature and
capacity per unit. The spreadsheet uses the value to calculate the fan horsepower and to
determine the nominal tons below.

Total Equipment Cost. The total equipment cost (fan coil units) calculated from the cost per unit
times the number of units.

23
LMTD. An intermediate value used in the calculation of the coil rows required. Calculated from
entering and leaving air temperatures, and entering and leaving water temperatures.

Face Area. Calculated coil face area based upon a 500 foot per minute face velocity. All coil
calculations are based on a 500 fpm face velocity.

Air Pressure Drop @ 10 FPI. Calculated air pressure drop across the coil for fan power
calculations. Value is expressed in inches of water gauge (in.w.g.) And is based on a fin spacing
of 10 fins per inch.

Fan kW @ 10 FPI. Calculated fan electrical energy requirement based upon a 90% motor
efficiency, a 50% fan efficiency, calculated air flow and air pressure drop. This value is used for
calculating annual electrical consumption for the primary output.

Total Man-Hours. Man-hours per unit times the number of units specified in the input. This
value is used to calculate the total labor costs for installation of the fan coil units.

The costs and labor for the FC units includes allowance for: 2 1-in. unions, 2 l-in. ball valves, 1
1-in. zone valve, 20 ft of 1-in. copper pipe, automatic air vent, thermostat and 24v wiring, 115v
wiring.

FAN COIL/BARE TUBE

The fan coil/bare tube input and output is located on the same section as the Fan Coil system.
With the exception of one additional input item, the FC/BT analyses is operated the same as the
FC.

The FC/BP system is one in which the greenhouse is heated the majority of the time by the bare
tubing. Only during peak periods do the fan coil units operate. The use of this system greatly
reduces annual electrical requirements and in some cases, the number of fan coil units required.
Because the fan coil units are located in series with and downstream of the bare tubes, the supply
water temperature available is less.

The comments below address only the difference between the FC/BT and FC procedures.

Input

The first input item is the percentage of the peak load which will be handled by the fan coil units.
Sizing the fan coil units for 30 to 40 percent of the load would, in most locations, allow the tubes
to provide 90+% of the annual heating needs. It may be useful to experiment with the value to
arrive at the optimum value (lowest annual cost) for your project.

24
1. Number of Units. Because the fan coil units will supply only a portion of peak load, the
number of units required can be lower than for the fan coil system. A minimum number
will be required to achieve adequate air distribution, however.

2. Entering Water Temperature. The entering water temperature displayed is the value
which results from subtracting the temperature drop through the bare pipe from the
primary supply water temperature. This lower supply water temperature may necessitate
a lower supply air temperature for the fan coil units under the FC/BT system compared to
the FC system.

FAN COIL / BARE TUBING SCREENSHOT

FAN COIL UNITS FC/BT

1. % of load as Fan Coil --------- 40 % FC

2. Number of Units 10 10
3. Leaving Air Temp 125 110

Capacity per Unit 347160 138864 btu/hr

Entering Water Temp 150 126 F
Nominal Tons 13.39 7.14
Rows Required ----------
8 FPI 4.96 4.51
10 FPI 4.14 3.77
12 FPI 3.62 3.29
Cost per Unit 3700 2175
Labor hrs 26 13
Ft of tube required -------- 73865
Cost of tubing -------- 19020
Total Cost 46100 45285
Leaving Water Temp 110 110 F
Indoor Design Temp 65 65 F
Air Flow Per Unit 5357 2857 cfm
Total Equipment Cost 37000 21750
LMTD 34.03 28.04 F
Face Area 10.71 5.71 sqft
Air Press. Drop @ 10 FPI 0.51 0.48 in wg
Fan KW @ 10 FPI 0.72 0.36
Total Man-hours 260 129

tons $ man hours

1 1080 9.70
2 1400 10.00
3 1925 11.00
4 2000 11.50
5 2125 12.00
7.5 2175 12.90
8 2600 17.30
10 2750 18.50

25
 12 3175 20.90
15 3700 26.00
20 4675 40.00
25 3500 44.00

ewt - lat 25.00 16.00

lwt - eat 45.00 45.00

FAN COIL / BARE TUBING SPREADSHEET CELL ENTRIES

A:AC4: FAN COIL UNITS

A:AG4: FC/BP

A:AC6: 1. % of load as Fan Coil

A:AF6: -
A:AG6: 35
A:AH6: % FC

A:AC7: 2. Number of Units

A:AF7: 10
A:AG7: 10

A:AC8: 3. Leaving Air Temp

A:AF8: 125
A:AG8: 110

A:AC10: Capacity per Unit

A:AF10: =E23/AF7
A:AG10: =(AG6/100)*E23/AG7
A:AH10: btu/hr

A:AC11: Entering Water Temp

A:AF11: =M16
A:AG11: =AF11-(((100-AG6)/100)*M17)
A:AH11: F

A:AC12: Nominal Tons

A:AF12: =AF24/400
A:AG12: =AG24/400

A:AC13: Rows Required

A:AF13:

A:AC14: 8
A:AD14: FPI
A:AF14: =AF10/(AF26*AF27*192)
A:AG14: =AG10/(AG26*AG27*192)

A:AC15: 10
A:AD15: FPI
A:AF15: =AF10/(AF27*AF26*230)
A:AG15: =AG10/(AG27*AG26*230)

26
A:AC16: 12
A:AD16: FPI
A:AF16: =AF10/(AF27*AF26*263)
A:AG16: =AG10/(AG27*AG26*263)

A:AC17: Cost per Unit

A:AF17:
=IF(AF12>1.1,IF(AF12>2.1,IF(AF12>3.1,IF(AF12>4.2,IF(AF12>5.5,IF(AF12>7.6,IF(AF12>8.2,IF(AF12>1
0.5,IF(AF12>12.5,IF(AF12>15.5,IF(AF12>20.5,AE45,AE44),AE43),AE42),AE41),AE40),AE39),AE38),AE
37),AE36),AE35),AE34)
A:AG17:
=IF(AG12>1.1,IF(AG12>2.1,IF(AG12>3.1,IF(AG12>4.2,IF(AG12>5.5,IF(AG12>7.6,IF(AG12>8.2,IF(AG12
>10.5,IF(AG12>12.5,IF(AG12>15.5,IF(AG12>20.5,AE45,AE44),AE43),AE42),AE41),AE40),AE39),AE38),
AE37),AE36),AE35),AE34)

A:AC18: Labor hrs.

A:AF18:
=IF(AF12>1.1,IF(AF12>2.1,IF(AF12>3.1,IF(AF12>4.2,IF(AF12>5.5,IF(AF12>7.6,IF(AF12>8.2,IF(AF12>1
0.5,IF(AF12>12.5,IF(AF12>15.5,IF(AF12>20.5,AF45,AF44),AF43),AF42),AF41),AF40),AF39),AF38),AF3
7),AF36),AF35),AF34)
A:AG18:
=IF(AG12>1.1,IF(AG12>2.1,IF(AG12>3.1,IF(AG12>4.2,IF(AG12>5.5,IF(AG12>7.6,IF(AG12>8.2,IF(AG12
>10.5,IF(AG12>12.5,IF(AG12>15.5,IF(AG12>20.5,AF45,AF44),AF43),AF42),AF41),AF40),AF39),AF38),
AF37),AF36),AF35),AF34)

A:AC19: Ft of tube required

A:AF19: -----------
A:AG19: =(E23*((100-AG6)/100))/(Z18*((((Z17+AG11)/2)-Z16)/((Z17-(Z14/2))-Z16)))

A:AC20: Cost of Tubing

A:AF20: -----------
A:AG20: =(0.0025*AG19*E19)+(Z12*AG19)

A:AC21: Total Cost

A:AF21: =AF25+(AF30*E19)
A:AG21: =AG25+(AG30*E19)+AG20

A:AC22: Leaving Water Temp

A:AF22: =AF11-M17
A:AG22: =AF11-M17
A:AH22: F

A:AC23: Indoor Design Temp

A:AF23: =M15
A:AG23: =AF23
A:AH23: F

A:AC24: Air Flow Per Unit

A:AF24: =AF10/(1.08*(AF8-AF23))
A:AG24: =AG10/(1.08*(AG8-AG23))
A:AH24: cfm

A:AC25: Total Equipment Cost

A:AF25: =AF17*AF7
A:AG25: =AG17*AG7

27
A:AC26: LMTD
A:AF26: =(AD49-AD48)/(LN(AD49/AD48))
A:AG26: =(AE49-AE48)/(LN(AE49/AE48))
A:AH26: F

A:AC27: Face Area

A:AF27: =AF24/500
A:AG27: =AG24/500
A:AH27: sqft

A:AC28: Air Press. Drop @ 10FPI

A:AF28: =0.23+((AF15-1)*0.09)
A:AG28: =0.23+((AG15-1)*0.09)
A:AH28: in wg

A:AC29: Fan KW @ 10 FPI

A:AF29: =((((5.2*AF24*AF28)/(0.5*33000)))/0.9)*0.746
A:AG29: =((((5.2*AG24*AG28)/(0.5*33000)))/0.9)*0.746
A:AC30: Total Man-hours

A:AF30: =AF18*AF7
A:AG30: =AG18*AG7

A:AD33: tons
A:AE33: $
A:AF33: man hours

A:AD34: 1
A:AE34: 1080
A:AF34: 9.70

A:AD35: 2
A:AE35: 1400
A:AF35: 10.00

A:AD36: 3
A:AE36: 1925
A:AF36: 11.00

A:AD37: 4
A:AE37: 2000
A:AF37: 11.50

A:AD38: 5
A:AE38: 2125
A:AF38: 12.00

A:AD39: 7.5
A:AE39: 2175
A:AF39: 12.90

A:AD40: 8
A:AE40: 2600
A:AF40: 17.30

28
 A:AD41: 10
A:AE41: 2750
A:AF41: 18.50

A:AD42: 12
A:AE42: 3175
A:AF42: 20.90

A:AD43: 15
A:AE43: 3700
A:AF43: 26.00

A:AD44: 20
A:AE44: 4675
A:AF44: 40.00

A:AD45: 25
A:AE45: 3500
A:AF45: 44.00

A:AC48: ewt-lat
A:AD48: =AF11-AF8
A:AE48: =AG11-AG8

A:AC49: lwt-eat
A:AD48: =AF22-AF23
A:AE48: =AG22-AG23

GLW UNIT HEATERS

GLW is the designation for one manufacturer's equipment line which is specifically designed for
low-temperature greenhouse heating. The equipment is similar to conventional unit heater
design but with an improved coil for greater heat output at low supply water temperature.

The GLW section is operated in much the same fashion as the unit heater screen. A number of
units is selected. From this and the supply water temperature and Delta T, the spreadsheet
calculates the capacity of the two models of GLW equipment. It then selects the appropriate unit
and enters its cost, labor and electrical kW in the appropriate places. It is necessary to adjust the
number of units so as to arrive at a capacity per unit close to one of the calculated capacity
values in the table at the bottom of the screen. It is also useful to check the total cost associated
with a small number of large units (GLW 660) compared to a larger number of small units
(GLW 330).

Input

1. Number of Units. Enter the number of units selected for heating the greenhouse.
Generally, due to the higher performance of the GLW equipment, the number of units
required is comparable to fan coil equipment and less than conventional unit heaters. The
number of units also should be coordinated with the calculated capacity per unit
displayed in the table below.

29
Output

Capacity per Unit. Calculated capacity required per unit based upon the peak heating load and
the number of units specified.

Cost of Selected Unit. The cost, from the table below, of the unit selected.

Hours per Unit. The installation labor hours, from the table below, of the unit selected.

kW per Unit. The kW, from the table below, for the unit selected. Value is used for calculating
electrical costs in the Primary Output.

Indoor Design Temperature. Displayed for convenience. Taken from Primary Input.

Supply Water Temperature. Displayed for convenience. Taken from Primary input.

Delta T. Displayed for convenience. Taken from Primary Input.

Total Cost. Number of units times the cost per unit. Value is used in cost calculations for
Primary Output.

Total Hours. Number of units times the hours per unit. Value is used in cost calculations for
Primary Output.
Flow per Unit. Calculated water flow per unit based on the capacity per unit and the specified
Delta T.

Table. Shown in the table below are the capacity, cost, installation labor and electrical
requirements (kW) for the two models of GLW equipment available. The capacity is
automatically calculated based on the supply water temperature and flow rate from above. The
costs and labor for the GLW units includes allowance for: 2 1-in. unions, 2 1-in. ball valves, 1 1-
in. zone valve, 20 ft of 1-in. copper pipe, automatic air vent, thermostat and 24v wiring, 115v
wiring. Sizes of components increase to 1-1/2 for GLW660 unit.

30
GLW UNIT HEATS SCREENSHOT

GLW UNIT HEATERS

# of Units 10

Capacity per Unit 347160 btu/hr

Cost of Selected Unit 3693 $

Labor per Unit 17.10 hrs
KW per Unit 0.70

Indoor Design Temp 65 F

Supply Temp 150 F
Delta T 40 F
Total Cost 36930 $
Total Hours 171
Flow per unit 17.4 gpm

Capacity cost hours kw

GLW330 218438 2115 13.30 0.35
GLW660 377956 3693 17.10 0.70

GLW UNIT HEATERS SPREADSHEET CELL ENTRIES

A:AJ4: GLW UNIT HEATERS

A:AJ6: # of Units
A:AM6: 10

A:AJ8: Capacity per Unit

A:AM8: =E23/AM6
A:AN8: btu/hr

A:AJ10: Cost of Selected Unit

A:AM10: =IF(AM8>1.1*AK22,AL23,AL22)
A:AN10: $

A:AJ11: Labor per Unit

A:AM11: =IF(AM10=AL22,AM22,AM23)
A:AN11: hrs

A:AJ12: KW per Unit

A:AM12: =IF(AM10=AL22,AN22,AN23)

A:AJ14: Indoor Design Temp

A:AM14: =M15
A:AN14: F

A:AJ15: Supply Temp

A:AM15: =M16
A:AN15: F

31
A:AJ16: Delta T
A:AM16: =M17
A:AN16: F

A:AJ17: Total Cost

A:AM17: =AM10*AM6
A:AN17: $

A:AJ18: Total Hours

A:AM18: =AM11*AM6

A:AJ19: Flow per unit

A:AM19: =AM8/(500*AM16)
A:AN19: gpm

A:AK21: Capacity
A:AL21: cost
A:AM21: hours
A:AN21: kw

A:AJ22: GLW330
A:AK22: =(AM15-AM14)*(10^(3.2+(((LOG10(AM19))-0.69)*0.382)))
A:AL22: 2115
A:AM22: 13.30
A:AN22: 0.35

A:AJ23: GLW660
A:AK23: =(AM15-AM14)*(10^(3.398+(((LOG10(AM19))-0.69)*0.455)))
A:AL23: 3693
A:AM23: 17.10
A:AN23: 0.7

GAS-FIRED UNIT HEATERS

Gas-fired unit heaters are sometimes used as a peaking system in greenhouses in which
geothermal serves as the base-load system. This can be the case were the geothermal
temperature is very low or where effluent from one house is used to heat a second facility. This
section of the spreadsheet calculates the number and capacity of unit heaters required to meet a
user defined percentage of the peak heating load.

Input

1. Number of Units. Enter the number of individual heating units required. As with all
systems, some minimum number of units is typically necessary to assure adequate air
distribution within the structure.

1. Percent of Design. Enter the percentage of the design load to be met by the gas-fired
units. Any value up to 100% can be entered. Typically in base load/peak load designs,
the peaking system (gas-fired) is designed to carry 40 to 50% of the peak load.

32
Output

Capacity per Unit. This is the required capacity (in Btu/hr) of the individual units required based
on the percentage of the load to be handled and the number of units specified. This value must
be equal to or less than the largest unit listed in the table at the bottom of the page.

Capacity in MBH. This is the capacity from the above output divided by 1000.

Cost per Unit. This is the cost of the unit size to most closely meet the capacity per unit value.
The cost includes (as detailed in the box following the table below) the necessary flue pipe,
branch gas piping and electrical connections to make the unit functional.

Hours per Unit. This is the total man-hours necessary to install the unit heater and the related
components.

kW. This is the electrical demand of the motor the unit heater is equipped with. The value is
used in the calculation of the operating costs for the system.

Total Equipment Costs. This is the total cost for the equipment associated with the unit heaters.
It is determined by multiplying the cost per unit times the number of units.

Total Labor Hours. This is the total labor man-hours necessary to install the unit heaters and
related equipment. It is determined from the hours per unit times the number of units.

Total. This is the total cost for the labor and materials for the unit heaters. It does not include
the main gas piping necessary to serve the units. The length of this pipe and its cost is a function
of the layout of the greenhouse.
$/sq ft. This is the total cost from above divided by the floor area of the greenhouse as entered at
Input #3.

The table at the bottom of the page includes the cost, labor and electrical requirements of the unit
heaters indexed to unit capacity. This data can be updated when necessary to reflect inflation.
Prices indicated are current as of January 2002. The labor and equipment figures above include
an allowance for: 12 ft of flue pipe, flue cap and collar, 115v wiring, 24v wiring, thermostat,
shut-off valve and 20 ft of gas line.

33
GAS FIRED UNIT HEATERS SCREENSHOT

PROPANE UNIT HEATERS

Number of Units 14
Percent of design 100

Capicity per unit 247971

Capacity in MBH 248
Cost per unit 1600
hrs per unit 18.9
kW per unit 0.44
Total eq. cost 22400
Total labor hrs 264.6

Total 31661
$/sq ft 0.72

capacity cost hrs kW

40 715 13 0.03
60 770 13.2 0.03
80 825 13.6 0.05
100 930 13.8 0.05
120 1005 14.1 0.22
140 1055 14.5 0.33
160 1085 14.9 0.33
200 1220 16.2 0.33
240 1400 16.8 0.33
280 1600 17.9 0.44
320 1775 18.9 0.50

GAS FIRED UNIT HEATERS SPREADSHEET CELL ENTRIES

A:AP4: PROPANE UNIT HEATERS

A:AP6: Number of Units

A:AR6: 14

A:AP7: Percent of Design

A:AR7: 100

A:AP9: Capacity per unit

A:AR9: =E23*(AR7/100)/AR6

A:AP10: Capacity in MBH

A:AR10: =AR9/1000

34
A:AP11: Cost per unit
A:AR11:
=IF(AR10>AP30,IF(AR10>AP31,IF(AR10>AP32,IF(AR10>AP33,IF(AR10>AP34,IF(AR10>AP35,IF(AR10
>AP36,IF(AR10>AP37,IF(AR10>AP38,IF(AR10>AP39,AQ40,AQ39),AQ38),AQ37),AQ36),AQ35),AQ34),
AQ33),AQ32),AQ31),AQ30)

A:AP12: hrs per unit

A:AR12:
=IF(AR10>AP30,IF(AR10>AP31,IF(AR10>AP32,IF(AR10>AP33,IF(AR10>AP34,IF(AR10>AP35,IF(AR10
>AP36,IF(AR10>AP37,IF(AR10>AP38,IF(AR10>AP39,AR40,AR40),AR39),AR38),AR37),AR36),AR35),A
R34),AR33),AR32),AR31)

A:AP13: kW per unit

A:AR13:
=IF(AR10>AP30,IF(AR10>AP31,IF(AR10>AP32,IF(AR10>AP33,IF(AR10>AP34,IF(AR10>AP35,IF(AR10
>AP36,IF(AR10>AP37,IF(AR10>AP38,IF(AR10>AP39,AS40,AS39),AS38),AS37),AS36),AS35),AS34),A
S33),AS32),AS31),AS30)

A:AP14: Total eq. cost

A:AR14: =AR6*AR11

A:AP15: Total labor hrs

A:AR15: =AR12*AR6

A:AP17: Total
A:AR17: =(E19*AR15)+AR16+AR14

A:AP18: $/sq ft
A:AR18: =AR17/E6

A:AP29: capacity
A:AQ29: cost
A:AR29: hrs
A:AS29: kW

A:AP30: 40
A:AQ30: 715
A:AR30: 13
A:AS30: 0.031

A:AP31: 60
A:AQ31: 770
A:AR31: 13.2
A:AS31: 0.03

A:AP32: 80
A:AQ32: 825
A:AR32: 13.6
A:AS32: 0.047

A:AP33: 100
A:AQ33: 930
A:AR33: 13.8
A:AS33: 0.047

35
A:AP34: 120
A:AQ34: 1005
A:AR34: 14.1
A:AS34: 0.22

A:AP35: 140
A:AQ35: 1055
A:AR35: 14.5
A:AS35: 0.33

A:AP36: 160
A:AQ36: 1085
A:AR36: 14.9
A:AS36: 0.33

A:AP37: 200
A:AQ37: 1220
A:AR37: 16.2
A:AS37: 0.33

A:AP38: 240
A:AQ38: 1400
A:AR38: 16.8
A:AS38: 0.33

A:AP39: 280
A:AQ39: 1600
A:AR39: 17.9
A:AS39: 0.44

A:AP40: 320
A:AQ40: 1775
A:AR40: 18.9
A:AS40: 0.

36
 Section 6
VENDOR INFORMATION

INTRODUCTION

The section includes a listing of vendors for greenhouse supplies, hydroponic systems,
greenhouse manufacturers, plant materials, and components of geothermal systems. Below is
only a partial listing of the available vendors and does not include endorsement of a particular
company over others. This listing was last updated in February 2008

GREENHOUSE SUPPLIES

BFG Supply A. H. Hummert Seed Co.

PO BOX 479 2746 Chouteau Ave.
14500 Kinsman RD. St. Louis, MO 63103
Burton, OH 44021 (800) 325-3055
(440) 834-1883
(800) 883-0234 Al Saffer and Co.
www.bfgsupply.com Pearl & Williams Streets
Port Chester, NY 10573
Brighton By-Products Co. (914) 937-6565
PO Box 23
New Brighton, PA 15066 Slater Supply Co.
(412) 846-1220 143 Allen Blvd.
(800) 245-3502 Farmingdale, NY 11735
(516) 249-7080
Florist Products, Inc.
2242 N. Palmer Dr. X. S. Smith, Inc.
Schaumburg, IL 60195 Drawer X
(312) 885-2242 Red Bank, NJ 07701
(201) 222-4600
E. C. Geiger
Box 2852 Stuppy Greenhouse Supply Div.
Harleysville, PA 19438 PO Box 12456
(215) 256-8835 Kansas City, MO 64116
(800) 443-4437 (800) 821-2132

Griffin Greenhouse Supplies

1629 Main St.
Tewksbury, MA 01876
(978) 851-4346
www.griffins.com

1
HYDROPONIC SYSTEMS

Agro Dynamics Hydro-Gardens

12 Elkins Road PO Box 9707
East Brunswick, NJ 08816 Colorado Springs, CO 80932
(800) 872-2476 (719) 495-2266

CropKing Smithers-Oasis
PO Box 310 PO Box 118
Medina, OH 44258 Kent, OH 44240
(216) 725-5656 (800) 321-8286

Gro-Master Division
Midwest Trading
PO Box 384
St. Charles, IL 60174
(312) 888-1728

GREENHOUSE MANUFACTURERS AND SUPPLIERS

Jaderloon Co. Nexus Greenhouse Systems

PO Box 685 PO Box 908
Irmo, SC 29063 Zellwood, FL 32798
(803) 798-4000 (305) 886-1724

Lord and Burnham V and V Noordland, Inc.

2 Main St. PO Box 739
Irvington-on-Hudson, NY 10533 Medford, NY 11763
(914) 591-8800 (516) 698-2300
Poly Growers
Ludy Greenhouse Mfg., Corp. Box 359
PO Box 141 Muncy, PA 17756
New Madison, OH 45346 (717) 546-3216
(513) 996-1921
Rough Bros.
Oehmsen Midwest, Inc. 5513 Vine St.
505 S. Baldwin St. Cincinnati, OH 45216
George, IA 51237 (513) 242-0310
(712) 475-2833
Van Wingerden Greenhouse Co.
National Greenhouse Co. 4078 Haywood Rd.
Box 100 Horse Shoe, NC 28742
Pana, IL 62557 (704) 891-7389
(271) 562-3919

2
Vary Greenhouses Winandy Greenhouse Co.
Box 248 2211 Peacock Rd.
Lewiston, NY 14092 Richmond, IN 47374
(416) 945-9691 (317) 935-2111

PLANT MATERIALS - SEEDS AND PLANTS

Ball Seed Co. Henry F. Michel Co.

PO Box 335 PO Box 160
West Chicago, IL 60185 King of Prussia, PA 19406
(800) 323-3677 (215) 265-4200

Bruinsma Seeds Northrup King

PO Box 1463 PO Box 959
High River, Alberta, Canada Minneapolis, MN 55440
(403) 652-4768 (800) 328-2420

H. B. Davis Seed Co. S. S. Skidelsky

50 Railroad Ave. 685 Grand Ave.
Box 5047 Ridgefield, NJ 07657
Albany, NY 12205 (201) 943-7840
(518) 489-5411
Utica Seed Co.
De Ruiter Seeds, Inc. Harold Gardner Menands Market
PO Box 20228 Albany, NY 12204
Columbus, OH 43220 (518) 434-6521
(614) 459-1498
Van Bourgondien & Sons, Inc.
G. S. Grimes Seeds 245 Farmingdale Rd.
201 West Main Street Babylon, NY 11702
Smethport, PA 16749 (516) 669-3500
(800) 241-7333
Vandenberg Bulb Co., Inc.
Fred C. Gloecker Co. 1 Black Meadow Rd.
600 Mamaroneck Ave. Chester, NY 10918
Harrison, NY 10528-1631 (914) 469-9161
(914) 698-2300
Vaughans Seed Co.
McHutchison and Co., Inc. 5300 Katrine Ave.
PO Box 95 Downers Grove, IL 60515
Ridgefield, NJ 07657 (800) 323-7253
(201) 943-2230

3
Walters Gardens, Inc. Yoder Bros., Inc.
PO Box 137 PO Box 230
Zeeland, MI 49464 Barberton, OH 44230
(616) 772-4697 (216) 745-2143

WELL PUMPS

Lineshaft Turbine

ITT- Goulds Pumps Peerless Pumps

Headquarters Sterling Fluid Systems Group
240 Fall St. PO Box 7026
Seneca Falls, NY 13148 Indianapolis, IN 46207-7026
(315) 568-2811 (317) 924-7305
www.gouldspumps.com www.peerlesspump.com

Johnston Pump Company Dresser-Rand

800 Koomey 1200 West Sam Houston Pkwy. N
Brookshire, TX 77423 Houston, TX 77043
(281) 934-6009 (713) 467-2221
www.dresser-rand.com
Layne / Verti-line Pumps
A Division of Pentair Pump Group
PO Box 6999
Kansas City, KS 66106
(913) 371-5000
www.laynebowler.com

Submersible Electric

Centrilift Franklin Electric

Corporate Offices 400 E. Spring Street
22 W. Stuart Roosa Dr. Bluffton, IN 46714
Claremore, OK 74017 (260) 824-2900
(918) 341-9600 (800) 348-2420
centrilift.bakerhughesdirect.com www.franklinpumps.com

Schlumberger
300 Schlumberger Dr.
Sugar Land, TX 77478
(281) 285-8500
www.slb.com

4
VARIABLE SPEED DRIVES

Centrilift Mitsubishi Electric Automation, Inc.

Corporate Offices 500 Corporate Woods Pkwy.
22 W. Stuart Roosa Dr. Vernon Hills, IL 60061
Claremore, OK 74017 (847) 478-2100
(918) 341-9600 www.meau.com
centrilift.bakerhughesdirect.com
Parametrics
General Electric Industrial Systems CM&C 284 Racebrook Road
1501 Roanoke Boulevard Orange, CT 06477
Salem, VA 24153 (203) 795-0811
(540) 387-7000
www.geindustrial.com Square D Corporation
11950 W. Lake Park Dr. #240
Dan Fuss Graham Company Milwaukee, WI 53212
8800 W. Bradley Road (414) 359-0959
Milwaukee, WI 53223
(414) 355-8800

PLATE HEAT EXCHANGER

Alfa-Laval Thermal Bell and Gossett

5400 International Trade Dr. ITT Industries
Richmond, VA 23231 8200 N. Austin Ave.
(804) 222-5300 Morton Grove, IL 60053
www.alfalaval.com (847) 966-3700
www.bellgossett.com
Invensys APV
Heat Transfer Paul Mueller Company
1200 Westash St. 1600 W. Phelps
Goldsboro, NC 27530 Springfield, MO
(919) 735-4570 (417) 831-3000
www.apv.com 800-MUELLER
www.paulmueller.com
Graham Manufacturing Company
20 Florence Avenue Tranter Inc.
Batavia, NY 14020 Texas Division
(585) 343-2216 PO Box 2289
www.graham-mfg.com Wichita Falls, TX 76307
(940) 723-7125
www.tranter.com

5
PIPING

Polybutylene / Polyethylene

Central Plastics Corporation Vanguard Piping Systems

39605 Independence 8125 North Fraser Way
Shawnee, OK 74301 Burnaby, BC
(800) 645-3872 CANADA V5J 5M8
www.centralplastics.com (888)-747-3739
www.vanguard.ca
Performance Pipe
5088 W. Park Blvd., Suite 500
Plano, TX 75093
(800)-527-0662
cpchem.com/enu/performance_pipe.asp

Fiberglass

Ameron FCPD Smith Fiberglass Products, Inc.

Fiberglass Composite Pipe Division Reinforced Plastics Division
Group Headquarters 2700 W 65th Street
9720 Cypresswood, Ste. 325 Little Rock, AR 72209
Houston, TX 77070 (501) 568-4010
(832) 912-8282 www.smithfiberglass.com
www.ameronfpd.com

Talbot International Inc.

17545 Kuykendahl, Suite D
Spring, TX 77379
(281) 376-1255

Pre-Insulated

Perma-Pipe Incorporated Thermal Pipe Systems, Inc.

A Subsidiary of MFRI, Inc. 5205 W. Woodmill Drive, Suite 33
7720 Lehigh Avenue Wilmington, DE 19808
Niles, IL 60714-3491 (303) 999-1588
(847) 966-2235 www.thermalpipesystems.com
www.permapipe.com
. Thermacor Process, Inc
Rovanco Piping Systems PO Box 76179
20535 SE Frontage Road Ft. Worth, TX 76179
Joliet, IL 60436 (817) 847-7300
(815) 741-6700 www.thermcor.com
www.rovanco.com

6
SPACE HEATING EQUIPMENT

Carrier Corporation The Trane Company

PO Box 4808 Commercial Systems Group
Carrier Parkway 2727 South Avenue
Syracuse, NY 13221 La Crosse, WI 54601-7599
(315) 432-6620 (608) 787-3445
www.carrier.com www.trane.com

McQuay International York International Corporation

13600 Industrial Park Blvd. 631 S Richmond Avenue
Minneapolis, MN 55441 York, PA 17403
(763) 553-5330 (717) 771-7890
(800) 432-1342 www.york.com
www.mcquay.com

Pace York International

9800 SE McBrod Avenue
Portland, OR 97222
(503) 659-5880
www.york.com

7
 Section 7
OTHER INFORMATION SERVICES

INTRODUCTION

The section provides contact information for the Farm Bill state representative in the USDA
State Rural Development Offices, National and International Organizations and Trade Journals
and Newsletters

USDA STATE RURAL DEVELOPMENT OFFICES

The contact information below comes from the Federal Register, Vol. 72, No. 55, March 22,
2007 for the announcement of Inviting Applications for Renewable Energy Systems and Energy
Efficiency Improvements Grants and Guaranteed Loans. For more information see the
following webpage http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/rbs/farmbill/index.html

Alabama California
Mary Ann Clayton Charles Clendenin
USDA Rural Development USDA Rural Development
Sterling Centre, Suite 601 430 G. Street, AGCY 4169
4121 Carmichael Rd. Davis, CA 95616-4169
Montgomery, AL 36106-3683 (530) 792-5825
(334) 279-3615
Colorado
Alaska April Dahlager
Dean Stewart USDA Rural Development
USDA Rural Development 655 Parfet Street, Room E-100
800 West Evergreen, Suite 201 Lakewood, CO 80215
Palmer, AK 99645-6539 (720) 544-2909
(907) 761-7722
Delaware-Maryland
Arizona James Waters
Alan Watt USDA Rural Development
USDA Rural Development 1221 College Park Drive, Suite 200
230 N. First Avenue, Suite 206 Dover, DE 19904
Phoenix, AZ 85003-1706 (302) 857-3626
(602) 280-8769
Florida / Virgin Islands
Arkansas Joe Mueller
Shirley Tucker USDA Rural Development
USDA Rural Development 4440 NW 25th Place
700 West Capital Avenue, Room 3416 PO Box 147010
Little Rock, AR 72201-3225 Gainesville, FL 32614-7010
(501) 301-3280 (352) 338-3482

1
Georgia Kansas
J. Craig Scroggs F. Martin Fee
USDA Rural Development USDA Rural Development
333 Phillips Drive 1303 SW First American Place, Suite 100
McDonough, GA 30253 Topeka, KS 66604-4040
(678) 583-0866 (785) 271-2744

Hawaii Kentucky
Tim OConnell Scott Mass
USDA Rural Development USDA Rural Development
Federal Building, Room 311 771 Corporate Drive, Suite 200
154 Waianuenue Ave. Lexington, KY 40503
Hilo, HI 96720 (859) 224-7435
(808) 933-8313
Louisiana
Idaho Kevin Boone
Brian Buch USDA Rural Development
USDA Rural Development 905 Jefferson Street, Suite 320
725 Jensen Grove Drive, Suite 1 Lafayette, LA 70501
Blackfoot, ID 83221 (337) 262-6601
(208) 785-5840 ext. 118
Maine
Illinois John F. Sheehan
Molly Hammond USDA Rural Development
USDA Rural Development 967 Illinois Avenue, Suite 4
2118 West Park Court, Suite A PO Box 405
Champaign, IL 61821 Bangor, ME 04402-0405
(217) 403-6210 (207) 990-9168

Indiana Massachusetts / Rhode Island / Connecticut

Jerry Hay Sharon Colburn
USDA Rural Development USDA Rural Development
2411 N. 1250 W. 451 West Street, Suite 2
Deputy, IN 47230 Amherst, MA 01002-2999
(812) 873-1100 (413) 253-4303

Iowa Michigan
Teresa Bomhoff Rick Vanderbeek
USDA Rural Development USDA Rural Development
873 Federal Building 3001 Coolidge Road, Suite 200
210 Walnut Street East Lansing, MI 48823
Des Moines, IA 50309 (517) 324-5218
(515) 284-4447

2
Minnesota New Jersey
Lisa Noty Victoria Fekete
USDA Rural Development USDA Rural Development
1400 West Main Street 8000 Midlantic Drive
Albert Lea, MN 56007 5th Floor North, Suite 500
(507) 373-7960 ext. 120 Mt. Laurel, JN 08054
(856) 787-7753
Mississippi
G. Gary Jones New Hampshire (see Vermont)
USDA Rural Development
Federal Building, Suite 831 New Mexico
100 West Capitol Street Eric Vigil
Jackson, MS 39269 USDA Rural Development
(601) 965-5457 6200 Jefferson Street, NE, Room 255
Albuquerque, NM 87109
Missouri (505) 761-4952
Matt Moore
USDA Rural Development New York
601 Business Loop 70 West Thomas Hauryski
Parkade Center, Suite 235 USDA Rural Development
Columbia, MO 65203 415 West Morris Street
(573) 876-9321 Bath, NY 14810
(607) 776-7398 Ext. 132
Montana
John Guthmiller North Carolina
USDA Rural Development H. Rossie Bullock
900 Technology Blvd., Unit 1, Suite B USDA Rural Development
PO Box 850 4405 Bland Road, Suite 260
Bozeman, MT 59771 Raliegh, NC 27609
(406) 585-2540 (910) 739-3349 Ext 4

Nebraska North Dakota

Karissa Hagedorn Mark Wax
USDA Rural Development USDA Rural Development
100 Centennial Mall North, Room 152, Federal Building, Room 208
Federal Building 220 East Rosser Avenue
Lincoln, NE 68508 PO Box 1737
(402) 437-5568 Bismarck, ND 58502-1737
(701) 530-2029
Nevada
Dan Johnson Ohio
USDA Rural Development Randy Monhemius
555 West Silver Street, Suite 101 USDA Rural Development
Elko, NV 89801 Federal Building, Room 507
(775) 738-8468, Ext. 112 200 North High Street
Columbus, OH 43215-2418
(614) 255-2424

3
Oklahoma Tennessee
Jody Harris Will Dodson
USDA Rural Development USDA Rural Development
100 USDA, Suite 108 3322 West End Avenue, Suite 300
Stillwater, OK 74074-2654 Nashville, TN 37203-1084
(405) 742-1036 (615) 783-1350

Oregon Texas
Don Hollis Daniel Torres
USDA Rural Development USDA Rural Development
1229 SE Third Street, Suite A Federal Building, Suite 102
Pendleton, OR 97801-4198 South Main Street
(541) 278-8049, Ext. 129 Temple, TX 76501
(254) 742-9756
Pennsylvania
Bernard Linn Utah
USDA Rural Development Richard Carrig
One Credit Union Place, Suite 330 USDA Rural Development
Harrisburg, PA 17110-2996 Wallace F. Bennett Federal Building
(717) 237-2182 125 South State Street, Room 4311
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
Puerto Rico (801) 524-4328
Luis Garcia,
USDA Rural Development Vermont / New Hampshire
IBM Building Lun Millhiser
654 Munoz Rivera Avenue, Suite 601 USDA Rural Development
Hato Rey, PR 00918-6106 City Center, 3rd Floor
(787) 766-5091, Ext. 251 89 Main Street
Montpelier, VT 05602
South Carolina (802) 828-6069
R. Gregg White
USDA Rural Development Virginia
Strom Thurmond Federal Building Laurette Tucker
1835 Assembly Street, Room 1007 USDA Rural Development
Columbia, SC 29201 Culpeper Building, Suite 238
(803) 765-5881 1606 Santa Rosa Road
Richmond, VA 23229
South Dakota (804) 287-1594
Gary Korzan
USDA Rural Development Washington
Federal Building, Room 210 Tuana Jones
200 4th Street, SW USDA Rural Development
Huron, SD 57350 1835 Black Lake Blvd. SW Suite B
(605) 352-1142 Olympia, WA 98512
(360) 704-7707

4
West Virginia Wyoming
Cheryl Wolfe Milton Geiger
USDA Rural Development USDA Rural Development
75 High Street, Room 320 Dick Cheney Federal Building
Morgantown, WV 26505-7500 100 East B Street, Room 1005
(304) 284-4882 PO Box 820
Casper, WY 82602
Wisconsin (307) 672-5820, Ext. 4
Kelley Oehler
USDA Rural Development
4949 Kirschling Court
Stevens Point, WI 54481
(715) 345-7615, Ext 141

NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS

Growers, Inc. Professional Plant Growers Association

M.P.O. 268 (PPGA)
Oberlin, OH 44074-0268 PO Box 27517
(216) 774-2887 Lansing, MI 48909
(517) 694-7700
Florists Transworld Delivery (FTD)
PO Box 2227 Roses, Inc.
Southfield, MI 48076 PO Box 99, Haslett, MI 48840
(517) 339-9544
Hydroponic Society of America
2819 Crow Canyon Road, Suite 218 Society of American Florists (SAF)
San Ramon, CA 94583 1601 Duke Street
(510) 743-9605 Alexandria, VA 22314

Floral Marketing Association (FMA)

PO Box 6036 Wholesale Florists and Florist
Newark, DE 19714-6036 PO Box 7308
(302) 738-7100 Arlington, VA 22207

TRADE JOURNALS AND NEWSLETTERS

American Nurseryman PPGA News

111 N. Canal St., Suite 545 PO Box 27517
Chicago, IL 60606 Lansing, MI 48909

American Vegetable Grower Flower News

37841 Eucil Ave. 549 W. Randolph St.
Willoughby, OH 44094 Chicago, IL 60606

5
Greenhouse Grower Grower
37841 Euclid Ave 49 Doughty St.
Willoughby, OH 44094 London, ENGLAND WC1N 2LP
Grower Talks
Greenhouse Manager George J. Ball, Inc.
PO Box 1868 West Chicago, IL 60185
Fort Worth, TX 76101
Produce Marketing Association
700 Bardsdale Rd., Suite 6
Newark, DE 19711

6
 Section 8
GREENHOUSE CASE STUDIES

INTRODUCTION

This section includes a several case studies and a feasibility study using geothermal in
greenhouses. The first case study is located in Hagerman, Idaho and uses 130oF water for
heating the greenhouse. The second case study is located near Newcastle, UT and uses 175 to
195oF water. The last item, a feasibility of geothermal heat pumps for greenhouse heating.
 CANYON BLOOMERS
(Formerly M & L Greenhouses)
Hagerman, Idaho
Gene Culver
Geo-Heat Center
LOCATION
These greenhouses are located along the Snake River,
approximately 30 miles northwest of Twin Falls, Idaho and
near the town of Hagerman. There are also several more
greenhouse operations, a catfish/tilapia/alligator farm, hot
springs spa/resorts and residential heating within about three
miles in either direction along the river. Elevation is about
3800 ft ASL and average annual temperature about 50oF.
RESOURCES
The resource is known as the Banbury Hot Springs
area. Most of the wells are in an area about 10 miles long by
one mile wide. The occurrence of thermal water in the area
appears to be fault controlled. The better (higher flow and
temperature) wells occur on the down-throw side of the fault.
Temperatures range from 77 to 162oF. Water quality is
generally goodpH 7.9 - 9.5, total dissolved solids 230 - 420
mg/l with higher temperature fluids having higher pH and
TDS. Artesian heads range from slightly above, to 360 ft
above, land surface. Based on heat flow data, depth of
circulation to attain the highest temperatures in the wells is
about 4400 ft and since most wells are only 420 - 700 ft deep,
convective transport along faults is indicated. Probable
maximum temperature based on geothermometers is about
195oF.
Canyon Bloomers utilizes two wells, one 505 ft deep
will produce about 400 gpm at 107oF; the other 1,000 ft deep
produces about 250 gpm at 130oF.
UTILIZATION
M & L Greenhouses started operation in 1970 with
one greenhouse using propane and electricity for heating. In
18
1974, the 107oF well was drilled and the greenhouse converted
to geothermal. Currently, there are 20 houses of 5,000 sq ft
each (2.3 acres). Geothermal at 130oF is used in fan coil units,
then cascaded to radiant floors in 16 of the houses. The
remaining four use water cascaded from the 16 in their radiant
floors. Water is also cascaded to radiant floors in the large
office and shop, and to a swimming pool. Three houses have
table top heating using 107oF water and the owners residence
uses mostly 107oF water in radiant floors, but can be switched
to 130oF water if needed. Total peak flow is 450 gpm
providing an estimated installed capacity of 1.9 MWt. Annual
energy use is estimated at 14.3 x 109 Btu/yr.
Canyon Bloomers is a contract grower supplying
2,000 varieties of annual spring plants to large retailers. Their
growing season starts about mid-December and finishes in
late-June.
OPERATING COST
Operating costs for the geothermal system is
minimal; since, the wells have an artesian head. Wellhead
pressure in the shallower 107oF well varies from 60 psi down
to 20 psi at peak flow. A booster pump is required only when
wellhead pressure is down near 20 psi. The other well is not
pumped. Fan coil units last about 15 years and cost about
$2,600. The black steel piping has had no problems.
Sometimes weak acid is run, through the pipes to clean
them, the owner reported.
REGULATORY/ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
During the late-1970s and early-1980s, there was a
large increase in the number of wells in the area. As a result,
artesian heads and flows decreased. The Idaho Water
GHC BULLETIN, MARCH 2004
Resources Department instituted a Ground Water
Management Area in 1983 meaning that no new commercial
well water rights will be issued.
There have been concerns voiced about geothermal
uses thermally polluting the Snake River. Most of the users
discharge relatively cool effluent so nothing has come of the
concerns to date.
CONCLUSIONS
This operation demonstrates the feasibility of
utilizing very low temperature geothermal resources. Several
of the greenhouses, the residence, shop and office are heated
by 107oF geothermal water. The operation started small and
grew as the owner learned greenhousing and geothermal, and
was not afraid to try using the lower than normal temperatures.

PROBLEMS AND SOLUTIONS

Aside from the artesian head loss, there have been no
major problems. Very early on, it was learned that copper
piping rapidly corroded and galvanized piping tended to scale
and plug, but since the operation was small, the conversion to
black iron was fairly easy and inexpensive.

130oF
40 psi artesian 107oF
20 - 60 psi
artesian
Typical of 16
Forced
Typical of 1 Air

Radiant Floor Radiant Floor

Bench Heating

Typical of 3

Radiant Floor Home

Pool

Office

Shop

Discharge
to River
450 gpm 90oF (estimated)

GHC BULLETIN, MARCH 2004 19

 MILGRO-NEWCASTLE GREENHOUSES
NEWCASTLE, UTAH
LOCATION
The Milgro facility is located just west of the town of
Newcastle, UT, approximately 37 miles west of Cedar City in
southern Utah. The elevation of approximately 5,000 ft
results in substantial heating requirements and below zero
temperatures are commonly encountered in the winter.
Milgro is the largest potted plant grower in the U.S. and in
addition to its 1,000,000-sq ft geothermally-heated facility in
Newcastle, it also maintains substantial conventionally-heated
operations near Los Angeles.
RESOURCE
The Newcastle area has long been recognized as rich
in geothermal resources. Prior to the initial development of
the Milgro facility, there were three other geothermally-
heated greenhouses in the immediate area (all except one now
owned by Milgro). There are currently numerous wells in the
area producing water in the 190o F to 205oF range. The wells
all penetrate sediments of the Escalante Valley consisting of
alternating sequences of clay, silt, sand and gravel. The
source of the fluids is thought to be from a buried point source
associated with a range front fault approximately 3/4 mile
southeast of the main production area (Blackett, 2001). The
geothermal fluids flow laterally toward the northwest through
the permeable portions of the sediments. Wells individually
produce flows up to 1500 gpm.
GHC BULLETIN, JUNE 2003
Recently, production at the Milgro facility has fallen
off in the #2 well. In addition, a new injection well, despite
intersecting substantial intervals of apparently permeable
materials, does not accept the expected flow.
UTILIZATION
Two production wells equipped with vertical, oil-
lubricated lineshaft pumps produce the flow for the system.
The wells are both approximately 600 ft deep. Water from
the two wells (1700 gpm at peak) is delivered to the
greenhouse facility; where, the pressure is raised by
individual 30-hp booster pumps for each of three 224,000 sq-
ft-ranges. From the booster pump, the water is delivered to
individual sub- zones in each range where a 4-way valve
diverts the water either to the heating tubes under the benches
or to disposal. Prior to the development of the two most
recent ranges (#4 and #5), the water was all disposed of in a
single injection well or to the surface (when flows exceeded
the capacity of the injection well). With the development of
the two newest ranges, water previously disposed of directly
is now routed through the new ranges.
In the original three ranges, heating is provided by
half-inch diameter EPDM tubes installed under the benches.
This places the heat at the plant root level for maximum
effectiveness in potted plant production. In the two newer
ranges, which were developed for cut flower production, heat
19
is supplied by two different systems---inch diameter tubes
on the floor and 1-1/4-inch diameter overhead finned pipe.
Effluent water from the other three ranges is boosted by two
individual pumps for ranges 4 and 5--one 7 hp for the
overhead finned pipe and one 15 hp for the tubes. The head
house building is heated with 18 unit heaters connected to the
distribution pipe to the ranges. All distribution pipe for the
ranges is steel with grooved end joining and is located
overhead in the head house. Typical greenhouse inside
temperature is 72o F day and 65oF night and varies with the
crop.
Disposal of the water is a combination of surface and
injection. The first injection well was drilled in 1993 and for
several years accepted almost all of the system effluent. It
was equipped with a pressure diverting valve such that water
in excess of what the well could accept was diverted to surface
percolation ponds for disposal. A new injection well was
drilled in 2002 with the hope that it would accept all of the
system effluent.
Using a figure of 23 acres, the peak geothermal
heating load is approximately 51 million Btu/hr (14.9 MWt)
based on an outside design temperature of 0oF. The annual
use is approximately 93 billion Btu; assuming, that 75% of
the sunlight hours, the sun meets the heating load.
OPERATING COSTS
Operating costs, specific to the geothermal portion
of the greenhouse are not available from Milgro; however,
some general cost data can be inferred from available
information. The total maintenance budget for the facility is
$16,000 per month. This figure includes maintenance on the
structures, vehicles, electrical systems, plant growing
equipment and the geothermal system. An interesting point
is that this amounts to less maintenance per square foot for
the geothermal facility than for Milgros conventionally-
heated greenhouses in the Los Angeles area --though this is
related to the fact that the conventionally heated structures are
much older.
The geothermal system includes a total of
approximately 485 hp in connected load associated with
pumping (well pumps and booster pumps) and approximately
9 hp in unit heater fans. Assuming that the well pumps are
operated in rough proportion to the heating requirements (#1
well pump is equipped with a variable-frequency drive) and
that the booster pumps are operated more or less continuously
in the heating season along with the unit heater motors, a
total electricity consumption of 1,500,000 kWh per year
would result. At a cost of $0.045 per kWh, this would
amount to approximately $67,500 per year.
REGULATORY/ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Geothermal fluids in Utah are regulated as a special
kind of underground resource. The use of or injection of the
fluid constitutes a beneficial use of the waters of the state and
as such water rights are required from the State Division of
Water Rights. In addition, rights to a geothermal resource or
fluids are based upon the principle of correlative rights
conveying the right of each landowner to produce his equit-
20
able share of underlying resources. Well construction and
permitting is regulated by the Division of Water Resources of
the Department of Natural Resources. Because all of the
facilities fluids are injected no special environmental permits
associated with disposal are required.
PROBLEMS AND SOLUTIONS
Despite the very large size of this system, operation
has been very reliable over the nine years it has been in
operation. In general, the early problems were in the area of
hardware and the more recent problems have been associated
with the resource. The initial design of the system was based
upon the use of plate heat exchangers to isolate the heating
system from the geothermal fluid. Due to slow system
response time, these heat exchangers were removed from the
system in 1995. Since that time, geothermal water has been
used directly in the heating equipment (primarily EPDM
tubing). The relatively benign nature of the water
(approximately 1100 ppm TDS, pH 8) has resulted in few
problems. One area that was troublesome was that of control
valves. These valves are used throughout the system to
provide temperature control for individual zones in the
ranges. Numerous failures of standard valves were
experienced due to exposure to the geothermal water until
replacement valves were coated internally with teflon. Well
pumps encountered less than acceptable service life early on.
In an effort to reduce failures in the bowl assembly, bearing
lengths were increased and the result has been a typical
service between overhauls for the pumps of approximately six
years.
More recently problems have centered on wells and
possibly the geothermal resource itself. An injection well was
installed in 1993. This well was initially able to accept most
of the system effluent however it periodically was necessary
to pump the well to re-establish its ability to accept water. In
addition, this well did not have a sufficient enough surface
seal to prevent water from migrating up along the casing to
the surface. This caused erosion of the area around the well
head. Eventually this wells capacity was reduced to the point
that it would not accept a significant flow. A new injection
well was drilled in 2002 several hundred feet north of the
existing injection well. It is not clear at this point how much
water this well will be able to accept.
Production from well #2 has recently decreased by
approximately 30%. It is not clear what the reason is for this
since water level measurement facilities are not available in
the wells. There has been some decrease in static levels
(thought to be about 12 ft) but this should not be sufficient to
eliminate key production zones. As a temporary measure, a
pipeline is being installed to transfer water from another
Milgro well located east of the wells #1 and #2. Production
wells #1 and #2 have experienced drops in temperature of
approximately 10oF in the recent past. It is thought that the
reduced flows and temperatures may be related to the ongoing
drought in the area and the lack of complete injection of
system effluent. These issues are the subject of ongoing work
at this writing.
GHC BULLETIN, JUNE 2003
CONCLUSIONS
The Milgro-Newcastle greenhouse is one of the
largest and most successful direct use applications in the
country. The recent issues associated with the well
performance are at least in part related to the substantial and
rapid growth that the operation has undergone. It is expected
that through careful monitoring and design, the local resource
will be capable of supporting the existing and planned
facilities well into the future.
REFERENCES
Blackett, R. E., 2001. Newcastle Utah Small-Scale
Geothermal Power Development Project. Report to
NREL for Phase I Task II - Preliminary Well
Development. Utah Geological Survey, Southern
Regional Office.

Well #1
1200 gpm
175oF

3 - 30 hp booster pumps
Well #2
800 gpm
195oF Range 1 Range 2 Range 3

Well #3
500 gpm
170oF
(stand-by)
Overhead
finned pipe 155oF

Range 5 7- hp booster pump Range 4

15 hp booster pump

Floor tubes 125oF

50 hp booster pump

Pressure diverting valve

Injection well #2 Injection well #1

Milgro-Newcastle Greenhouse Schematic

GHC BULLETIN, JUNE 2003 21

Greenhouse Heating with Geothermal Heat Pump Systems
by Andrew Chiasson, P.E.

ABSTRACT

The objective of this study is to examine the feasibility of greenhouse heating with geothermal
heat pump (GHP) systems. Both closed- and open-loop systems are examined at four locations
across the U.S. and a net present value analysis is conducted for a 20-year life-cycle for various
GHP base-load fractions.

Results show that it would only be under situations of relatively low ground loop installation
costs and/or relatively high natural gas costs that some portion of a greenhouse could be
economically heated with a closed-loop GHP system. At natural gas costs of about $0.60/therm
($0.21/m3), no fraction of a closed-loop GHP system is economically feasible for the cases
examined. At natural gas costs from $0.60/therm to $1.00/therm ($0.21/m3 to $0.35m3), closed-
loop GHP systems begin to emerge as economically viable, but only at low loop installation
costs, on the order of $5.50/ft ($18/m). At these rates, the feasible ground loop size would only
be capable of handling 15-30% of the total annual heating demands of the greenhouse. At
ground loop installation costs of $10/ft ($33/m), natural gas costs would have to exceed
$1.50/therm ($0.53/m3) for closed-loop GHP systems to be considered economically viable.

Open-loop GHP systems show considerably more favorable economics than closed-loop systems.
At natural gas costs of about $0.60/therm ($0.21/m3), an open-loop system could feasibly be
installed to handle 25-30% of annual greenhouse heating demands. At $0.75/therm ($0.26/m3)
natural gas cost, the feasible annual base-load handled by an open-loop system would increase
to 60% and then again to about 85% at $1.00/therm ($0.35m3) natural gas cost. Of course, open-
loop systems would need to be sited at locations with sufficient ground water supply.

1
INTRODUCTION

The success and economic benefits of heating greenhouses with low-temperature geothermal
resources (i.e. groundwater temperatures >140oF (60oC)) has lead to the question of whether or
not lower temperature resources could be exploited with the aid of geothermal heat pumps
(GHPs). This study seeks to answer that question, and therefore the objective is to determine the
feasibility of heating greenhouses with GHP systems. Both closed- and open-loop systems are
examined at four locations across the United States: Boston, MA; Dallas, TX, Denver, CO; and
Seattle, WA. A number of GHP base-load combinations are examined for the four locations to
find the lowest 20-year life-cycle cost at various natural gas rates and GHP installation costs.

GREENHOUSE HEATING SYSTEMS

Of the many types of greenhouse heating systems, the two most common types are fan-coil
systems and bare-tube systems. The particular system chosen by a grower depends on many
factors such as economics, type of crop, and preference.

In a comparison study of this type, assumptions need to be made about the greenhouse heating
system that is being displaced by the GHP system. GHPs are of two types: water-to-water and
water-to-air. Water-to-water heat pumps would displace a low-temperature fossil-fuel fired
boiler system. Water-to-air heat pumps would displace fan systems, where the conventional heat
source could either be a boiler with unitary hot water fan coil system or a direct gas-fired air-
handling type system. Therefore, for comparison purposes in this study, the greenhouse heating
system considered is a simple bare-tube system where the base-load heat demand is supplied by
a water-to water GHP system and the remaining heat demands are supplied by a natural gas-
fired, low-temperature boiler.

GREENHOUSE HEATING LOADS

Hourly heating loads were calculated for a 1 acre (4047 m2) greenhouse using typical
meteorological year (TMY) data for Boston, MA, Dallas, TX, Denver, CO, and Seattle, WA.
Heat transfer processes included in the calculations were: solar heat gain, conduction through
the structure, convection, infiltration, and ground conduction. Greenhouse construction was
assumed to be fiberglass with a set-point temperature of 65oF (18.3oC) and infiltration losses of 1
air-change per hour. Greenhouse cooling was assumed to be accomplished by another means,
such as natural ventilation or evaporative cooling.

Hourly heating loads for the year are shown in Figure 1. As might be expected, Denver and
Boston show the most extreme heating loads. An interesting and important result is shown in
Figure 2, which is a plot of the fraction of total annual heating demands versus the fraction of the
peak load that a base-load system would be designed to handle. This is significant since a base-
load system (the GHP system in this case) sized at 50% of the peak load could meet about 92%
of the total annual heating requirements.

2
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS

Closed-Loop GHP System

The hourly loads shown in Figure 1 were converted to monthly total and peak loads, and using a
software program, ground loops were sized for each city for several GHP part load cases (100%,
75%, 50%, 33%, 25%, 10%, and 0%). The loop-sizing software also computes heat pump power
consumption.

A net present value (NPV) analysis of a 20-year life cycle was used to compare alternatives for
the various part load cases. Equipment costs for natural gas-fired boiler systems were taken from
R.S. Means Mechanical Cost Data and water-to-water heat pump material and installation costs
were assumed at $1000/ton ($284/kW) of heat pump capacity. Ground loop installation costs are
commonly reported per foot of vertical bore, and for this study, a range of $4/ft to $12/ft ($13/m
to $39/m) was examined, which is representative of the widely varying values observed across
the U.S.

Annual operating costs included fuel and maintenance costs. A range of natural gas costs from
$0.50 to $2.00 per therm ($0.18/m3 to $0.70/m3) was examined. Electricity cost was fixed at
$0.10/kW-hr. Annual boiler maintenance costs were assumed at 2% of capital cost. A discount
rate of 6% was assumed.

Results of the closed-loop economic analysis are presented in Figure 3 in the form of a contour
plot. Results were similar for all cities examined. The plot shows contours of the GHP fraction of
the total heating system that yields the lowest NPV at various natural gas rates and ground loop
installation costs. A review of Figure 3 reveals that at natural gas prices of about $0.80/therm
($0.25/m3), it would not be justifiable to heat any portion of a greenhouse with a closed-loop
GHP system unless the ground loop could be installed at very low cost of about $5/ft ($16.40/m).
At these rates, it would only be feasible to install a ground loop capable of handling 15-30% of
the total annual heating requirements. At a loop installation cost of $10/ft ($33/m), natural gas
prices would have to exceed $1.50/therm ($0.53/m3) to justify installing a ground loop to handle
15-30% of the total annual heating requirements.

Open-Loop GHP System

The same overall approach was taken in the economic analysis of the open-loop systems as for
the closed-loop systems with the following differences. The capital cost range of the open loop
systems were taken from Outside the Loop Newsletter (Vol. 1, No.1, 1998). These costs, shown
in Figure 4, are expressed per ton (and kW) of delivered capacity for various well configurations
and include costs of production and injection wells, well tests, pumps, piping to the building,
heat exchangers, controls, and 15% contingency. For the operating costs, additional electrical
loads were included to account for a submersible pump operating under an assumed vertical head
of 100 ft (30.48 m).

3
Results of the open-loop economic analysis are presented in Figure 5. The plot shows contours of
the GHP fraction of the total heating system that yields the lowest NPV at various natural gas
rates and open loop installation costs. A review of Figure 5 shows much greater feasibility of
greenhouse heating with open-loop GHP systems over closed-loop systems. At natural gas prices
of about $0.80/therm ($0.25/m3), it would be economically feasible to install an open-loop GHP
system up to a cost of about $600/ton ($170/kW). This open loop cost covers most of the well
configurations shown in Figure 4. For this cost, an approximate 40% open-loop system (relative
to the peak load) could feasibly be installed and would be capable of handling about 80% of the
total annual heating demands (see Figure 2). Note also the relative flatness of the 0.1 to 0.4
curves in Figure 5 from about $200/ton to $600/ton ($57/kW to $170/kW). This reflects the
economies of scale with open loop systems; only two to four wells are needed if enough ground
water is present. Thus, a greenhouse would need to be sited at a location where there is sufficient
ground water supply.

CONCLUDING SUMMARY

This study has examined the feasibility of greenhouse heating with closed- and open-loop GHP
systems. Heating loads were computed for four climates across the U.S. The net present value of
a 20-year life-cycle was determined for various GHP base-load fractions.

The results of this study show that the feasibility of heating greenhouses with closed-loop GHP
systems is strongly dependent on the natural gas cost and the ground loop installation cost. It
would not be economically justifiable to heat any portion of a greenhouse using a closed-loop
GHP system unless loop installation costs were as low as $4/ft to $5/ft ($13/m to $16.40/m) and
natural gas prices exceeded $0.75/therm ($0.26/m3). This represents a very marginal situation at
2005 rates. On the contrary, for the cases examined, open loop systems appear to be quite
economically feasible above natural gas rates of about $0.60/therm ($0.21/m3).

4
 (a) Boston, MA (b) Dallas, TX

5.0 1465 5.0 1465

4.5 1319 4.5 1319

4.0 1172 4.0 1172

3.5 1026 3.5 1026

3.0 879 3.0 879

2.5 733 2.5 733

2.0 586 2.0 586

1.5 440 1.5 440

1.0 293 1.0 293

0.5 147 0.5 147

0.0 0 0.0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Time (months) Time (months)

(c) Denver, CO (d) Seattle, WA

5.0 1465 5.0 1465

4.5 1319 4.5 1319

4.0 1172 4.0 1172

3.5 1026 3.5 1026

3.0 879 3.0 879

2.5 733 2.5 733

2.0 586 2.0 586

1.5 440 1.5 440

1.0 293 1.0 293

0.5 147 0.5 147

0.0 0 0.0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Time (months) Time (months)

Figure 1. Hourly heating loads on an annual basis.

5
 1.0

0.9

0.8

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
% of Peak Load that the System is Designed to Handle

Boston Dallas Denver Seattle

Figure 2. Fraction of total annual heating load actually handled versus design fraction of peak
load for a base-load system.

6
 Contours represent fraction of geothermal peak design load to total peak design load

Closed Loop Installation Cost ($/m of vertical bore)

4 $15 5 6
$20 7 $25 8 9$30 10 $35 11 12
$40
$2.00 2
$0.70

$1.75 1.75

$0.60

$1.50 1.5

$0.50

$1.25 1.25

$0.40

$1.00 1

INFEASIBLE
$0.30
REGION

$0.75 0.75

$0.20

$0.50 0.5
$4 $5 $6 $7 $8 $9 $10 $11 $12
Closed Loop Installation Cost ($/ft of vertical bore)

Figure 3. Closed-loop GHP system fraction providing lowest net present value of a 20-year life
cycle at various natural gas costs and closed-loop installation costs. (Results derived
from Boston, Dallas, Denver, and Seattle climate data.)

7
 System Load (kW)
0 352 703 1055 1406 1758
1200 341

1000 284

800 227

600 170

400 114

200 57

0 0
0 100 200 300 400 500
System Load (tons)

4 wells @ 600 ft (183 m) 2 wells @ 800 ft (244 m)

2 wells @ 200 ft (61 m) 4 wells @ 200 ft (61 m)

Figure 4. Open-loop system costs for 60oF groundwater (Source: Outside the Loop Newsletter,
Vol. 1, No. 1, 1998).

8
 Contours represent fraction of geothermal peak design load to total peak design load

Open Loop Installation Cost ($100/kW)

2 3 $1.0 4 5 $1.5 6 $2.0
7 8 $2.59 10
$2.00 2
$0.70

$1.75 1.75
$0.60

$1.50 1.5

$0.50

$1.25 1.25

$0.40

$1.00 1

$0.30

$0.75 0.75

$0.20

$0.50 0.5
$2 $3 $4 $5 $6 $7 $8 $9 $10
Open Loop Installation Cost ($100/ton)

Figure 5. Open-loop GHP system fraction providing lowest net present value of a 20-year life
cycle at various natural gas costs and open-loop installation costs. (Results derived
from Boston, Dallas, Denver, and Seattle climate data.)

9
 Section 9
GEO-HEAT CENTER
GREENHOUSE BULLETIN ARTICLES

INTRODUCTION

This section includes several Geo-Heat Center bulletin articles in their entirety, plus webpage
addresses to all the bulletin articles on greenhouses that are available on our website in PDF
format.

The sample bulletin articles are

Castlevalley Greehouses, Newcastle by Robert Blackett and John W. Lund
Utah Hot Springs and Allan Plant Company Greenhouses by Robert Blackett and John
W. Lund
Masson Radium Springs Farm by James C. Whitcher and John W. Lund
J & K Growers, Las Cruces, New Mexico by John W. Lund
Greenhouse Carbon Dioxide for Use in Greenhouses by M.G. Dunstall and G. Graber
Greenhouse Climate Factors by Kiril Popovski
 CASTLEVALLEY GREENHOUSES, NEWCASTLE
Robert Blackett
Utah Geological Survey
Cedar City, UT

John W. Lund
Geo-Heat Center

Castlevalley greenhouses showing geothermal water supply lines.

BACKGROUND ON ESCALANTE VALLEY shallow groundwater at the system margins. A maximum

Newcastle, Utah is a rural farming community
located about 30 miles west of Cedar City, Utah along the
southeastern edge of the Escalante Valley in Iron County.
The Newcastle geothermal resource, low-to-moderate
temperature hydrothermal system, was accidentally discovered
in 1975 during an aquifer test of an irrigation well. Upon
pump-testing of the well, Christensen Brothers--a local
farming company (owners of Castlevalley Greenhouses)--
discovered that the well had penetrated a geothermal aquifer.
Termed a blind geothermal resource, there are no obvious
surface manifestations such as hot springs or fumaroles to
suggest that a geothermal system is present at depth. The
water in the well was near the boiling point and reportedly
flashed to steam when pumped to the surface. Subsequent
studies by the University of Utah, Department of Geology and
Geophysics (Chapman, et al., 1981), the Utah Geological
Survey (UGS) (Blackett and Shubat, 1992) and the University
of Utah Research Institute (Ross, et al., 1990; 1994) defined
a buried zone of suspected geothermal upflow along the
nearby Antelope Range fault that they postulate as the source
of the hot water.
Studies also defined a shallow aquifer that channel
the outflow of geothermal fluids into the subsurface of the
Escalante Valley. Geothermal production wells, typically 500
ft (150 m) deep, tap the geothermal fluid in this unconfined
aquifer. The fluids cool by conduction and probably mix with
temperature of 266F (130C) was measured in a 1981
geothermal exploration well (CHR-1), which penetrated the
geothermal aquifer (outflow plume). Exploratory drilling in
the summer of 2001 in the same location as CHR-1, however,
yielded lower temperatures (~243F, 117C). Production wells
at the greenhouses generally yield fluids in the range of 167 to
203F (75 to 95C). Chemical signatures or
geothermometers suggest maximum resource temperatures
of 266 to 302F (130 to 150C).
GEOTHERMAL STUDIES
Blackett and Shubat (1992) prepared a case study of
the Newcastle geothermal system based on previous work and
the results of detailed geologic mapping and various
geophysical surveys. D. S. Chapman (Blackett, et al., 1990)
developed a heat-flow map of the Newcastle area using data
from about 30 exploratory, thermal-gradient drill holes. He
reported an anomalous heat loss of 12.4 thermal megawatts
(MWt). A more recent calculation (Ross, et al, 1994), which
accounted for corrected well positions and used the method of
Chapman, yielded an anomalous heat loss of 13.8 MWt. Ross
and others (1990) completed electrical resistivity and self-
potential (SP) studies which provided independent evidence for
the location of the thermal fluid up-flow zone. A well-
defined 108 millivolt (mV) SP minimum was mapped between
temperature-gradient monitor wells with greatest heat flow and

40 GHC BULLETIN, DECEMBER 2004

above the projected intersection of northwest-trending
structures with the Antelope Range fault. Two lesser minima
of -44 mV and -36 mV were also mapped to the southwest,
above the buried Antelope Range fault. Numerical models of
dipole-dipole resistivity profiles resolve near-vertical low-
resistivity (4 ohm-m) bodies which are interpreted as up-flow
zones. A low-resistivity (4 ohm-m) layer at a depth of about
150 ft (45 m) within the alluvium extending to the northwest
is interpreted as the geothermal outflow plume.

UTILIZATION
Castlevalley Greenhouses consists of nine arched,
double plastic covered building heated with 210oF (99oC)
water. These greenhouses cover an area of about 33,750 ft 2
or 0.77 acres (0.31 ha) Water at around 350 gpm (22 L/s) is
supplied to fan coil heaters at the end of each house. The
main crop is tomatoes grown hydroponically. These are
marketed by the owners through southern Utah. A few
bedding plants are also grown.
Fan coil heaters at the end of a greenhouse.

Blackett, R. E.; Shubat, M. A.; Chapman, D. S.;, Forster, C.

B.; Schlinger, C. M. and C. E. Bishop, 1990. The
Newcastle Geothermal System, Iron County,
UtahGeology, Hydrology, and Conceptual Model.
Utah Geological Survey Open-File Report No. 189,
179 p.

Chapman, D. S.; Clement, M. D. and C. W. Mase, 1981.

Thermal Regime of the Escalante Desert, Utah,
With an Analysis of the Newcastle Geothermal
System. Journal of Geophysical Research, v. 86,
no. B12, p. 11,735-11, 746.

Ross, H. P.; Blackett, R. E.; Forster, C. B. and S. Snelgrove,

Interior of a greenhouse showing the hydroponic growing
system.
REFERENCES
Blackett, R. E. and M. A. Shubat, 1992. A Case Study of
the Newcastle Geothermal System, Iron County,
Utah. Utah Geological Survey Special Study 81,
30 p.
1994. A Model for Sustainable Development - The
Newcastle, Utah Geothermal Resource, in Blackett,
R. E. and J. N. Moore, J.N. editors, Cenozoic
Geology and Geothermal Systems of Southwestern
Utah. Salt Lake City, Utah Geological Association
Publication 23, p. 69-79.
Ross, H. P.; Blackett, R. E.; Shubat, M. A. and C. E.
Mackelprang, 1990. Delineation of Fluid Up-Flow
and Outflow Plume with Electrical Rresistivity and
Self-Potential Data, Newcastle Geothermal Area,
Utah. Geothermal Resources Council Transactions,
v.14, p. 1,531-1,536.

GHC BULLETIN, DECEMBER 2004 41

 UTAH HOT SPRING AND
ALLAN PLANT COMPANY GREENHOUSES
Robert Blackett
Utah Geological Survey
Cedar City, UT

John W. Lund
Geo-Heat Center

Remain of one of the cisterns used for hot water collection for the resort (Bob Blackett).

BACKGROUND deposits and structural geology along these two fault

Utah Hot Springs issue from several orifices in
Pleistocene valley fill sediments at the western edge of the
Pleasant View spur, or salient, about 300 ft (90 m) west of
U.S. 89 on the Box Elder-Weber County line. Utah hot
springs is within an urban-industrial setting adjacent to a
utility corridor, highway, and Interstate 15. The springs were
used for a time at a now-defunct resort, and are currently used
to heat a small commercial greenhouse operation. The
maximum temperature reported is 145F (63C); although,
temperatures reported in most studies ranged between 135F
and 137F (57C and 58.5C) (Murphy and Gwynn, 1979).
Minor geothermal exploration was conducted in the early
1980s, but the resource is poorly defined. Although the area
is industrial, large-scale development could be problematic
due to the number of listed sensitive plant and animal species
(10) possibly in the area. Small-scale geothermal power
development, however, would likely blend well with other
uses. Zoning restrictions in this urban-fringe area could
impede some types of future development (Blackett, et al.,
2004).
GEOLOGY
Utah Hot Springs are situated nearly due west of the
boundary between the Weber and Brigham City segments of
the Wasatch fault, where Personius (1990) describes surficial
segments. His work shows that at least three Holocene faults
on the west flank of the Pleasant View spur postdate
Bonneville Lake cycle (between 30 and 10 ka) deposits and
trend roughly at right angles to the Brigham City segment of
the Wasatch Fault. The three faults are marked by 10-16-ft (3-
5-m) high scarps formed in Bonneville-Lake-cycle lacustrine
gravels. The northernmost scarp also appears to cut Holocene
fluvial and lacustrine deposits near the hot springs. He also
notes that the springs appear localized at the intersection of
this young fault and an older buried fault, described by Davis
(1985), that flanks the west side of the spur.
Total dissolved solids content of Utah Hot Springs
water ranges between 18,900 and 25,200 mg/L, consisting
mainly of sodium chloride. In addition to the high salinity, the
water contains 3 to 5 mg/L dissolved iron that oxidizes and
precipitates when the water is aerated. The iron compounds
have reportedly led to scale buildup in piping and heat
exchangers within the greenhouses. Felmlee and Cadigan
(1978) have reported that the water also contains measurable
quantities of radium (66 g/L) and uranium (0.04 g/L).
Cole (1983) included Utah Hot Springs as part of a
geothermal-geochemical research project, and suggested that
the hot spring discharge fluids appear to have circulated to
depths in excess of 3 mile (5 km), thermally equilibrating with
reservoir rock at temperatures above 392F (200C).

44 GHC BULLETIN, DECEMBER 2004

UTILIZATION Murphy, P. J. and J. W. Gwynn, 1979. Geothermal
The hot springs were on the Hensley/Salt Lake Investigations at Selected Thermal Systems of the
Cutoff emigrant trail used in the 1850s. At the turn of the Northern Wasatch Front, Weber and Box Elder
century, a resort with a geothermally heat pool was built. Counties, Utah. Utah Geological and Mineral
Special trains were run from Salt Lake City and Ogden to the Survey Report of Investigation 141, Salt Lake City,
resort while it was in use. The resort was torn down about UT.
1970; however two cisterns remain, that were used to collect
the spring water. The springs presently flow under the Personius, S. F., 1990. Surfical Geologic Map of the
railroad and across a gentle slope. They are deep red from the Brigham City Segment and Adjacent Parts of the
iron oxide that has precipitated from the water Water, at a Weber and Collinston Segments, Box Elder and
rate of about 100 gpm (6.3 L/s) is collected at this point for Weber Counties, Utah, U. S. Geological Survey,
the greenhouses run by Allan Plant Company. A total of 24 Miscellaneous Investigation Series Map I-1979, scale
double plastic covered greenhouses are heated with the 1:50,000.
geothermal water. These greenhouses, covering about 52,000
ft2 or 1.19 acres (0.48 ha) are used to raise bedding plants
(mainly geraniums) and poinsettias, which are sold wholesale
to garden centers throughout northern Utah. Approximately
300,000 flats of bedding plants and 8,000 poinsettias are sold
annually.
Water enters the greenhouses at about 135oF (57oC)
and supplies heat to the plants through PVC pipes under the
tables, and then exits around 90oF (32oC). This radiant heat
keeps the greenhouses at the desired 60 to 65oF (16 to 18oC),
and heat is required year around, as in the summer, heat is
needed for the seed propagation sand beds. Because of the
high iron content in the water, special fittings are provided at
intervals to the bottom of the heating pipes. These are flushed
out with a hose three or four times a year.
Interior of a greenhouse with the PVC heating pipes under
REFERENCES the benches.
Blackett, R. E.; Sowards, G. M. and E. Trimmer, 2004.
Utahs High-Temperature Geothermal Resource
Potential - Analysis of Selected Sites. in Blackett,
R. E. and S. Wakefield, compilers, Geothermal
Resources of Utah - 2004. Utah Geological Survey
Open-File Report 431, CD-ROM.

Cole, D. R., 1983. Chemical and Isotopic Investigation of

`Warm Springs Associated with Normal Faults in
Utah, Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal
Research, Vol. 16.

Davis, F. D., 1985. Geology of the Northern Wasatch

Front, Utah Geological and Mineral Survey Map
A-53, scale 1:100,000.

Felmlee, J. K. and R. A. Cadigan, 1978. Determination of

Uranium in Source Rocks by Using Radium in Spring water with iron precipitations -- greenhouses in
Crystal Springs, Great Salt Lake Area, Utah. U.S. background.
Geological Survey Open-File Report 78-102; also,
1977, U.S. Geological Survey Circular 753,
Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.

GHC BULLETIN, DECEMBER 2004 45

 MASSON RADIUM SPRINGS FARM
James C. Witcher
Southwest Technology Development Institute
New Mexico State University
Las Cruces, NM

John W. Lund
Geo-Heat Center

Figure 1. Location map of the Masson Greenhouses (Witcher, 2001).

INTRODUCTION flowering and tropical plants. The markets cover southern

The Masson Radium Springs Farm geothermal
greenhouses are located on private land in southern New
Mexico 15 miles north of Las Cruces and just west of
Interstate 25 near the east bank of the Rio Grande adjacent the
Federal Radium Springs KGRA (Figure 1). The operation
started in 1987 with four acres of geothermally-heated
greenhouses (Whittier, et al., 1991). Prior to startup at
Radium Springs, Masson was one of the first clients in the
SWTDI/NMSU business incubator and research Geothermal
Facility. Masson selected New Mexico and the Radium
Springs area to take advantage of the sunshine, ease of climate
control because of the dry desert air, a willing and trainable
work force, and geothermal heat. Today, the greenhouses em-
ploy 110 people, and cover 16 acres in two major modules,
each with shipping and warehousing buildings attached (Photo
1). The Masson Radium Springs Farm is the production
facility for Alex R. Masson, Inc. of Linwood, Kansas which
handles distribution, marketing, and sales of wholesale potted
Arizona, New Mexico, west Texas, and the mid-west, and the
products are sold under the registered trade name of
Sunflower Sue (http://www.sunflowersue.com/). The Masson
Radium Springs Farm geothermal greenhouses are used to
produce more than 30 groups of potted plant products
including season products such as poinsettias.
GEOLOGY AND HYDROGEOLOGY
The Radium Springs geothermal system is one the
largest in the southern Rio Grande rift and the main thermal
anomaly extends northward from Radium Springs nearly 10
miles over a 3-mile wide swath. The Radium Springs
geothermal system is confined to a late-Tertiary horst block
bound on the east by a major Pleistocene normal fault, and on
the west by several smaller late Tertiary and Quaternary faults
(Seager, 1975). However, the pre-Tertiary bedrock or
reservoir host in the horst is dominated by large-scale
Laramide reverse faults and associated folds, and minor thrust

42 GHC BULLETIN, DECEMBER 2002

 Photo 1. Two views of the greenhouses.
faults in Precambrian granite and Paleozoic limestones.
These deformed rocks are apart of the frontal convergence
zone of a very large basement-cored and northwest-trending
Laramide uplift that has since been sliced apart by north-
striking Tertiary rift normal faults (Seager, et al., 1986). The
Laramide compressional deformation of Precambrian and
Paleozoic rocks with an overprinting of extensional faults
forms a favorable host for the deep or parent reservoir at
Radium Springs and northward in the subsurface to San Diego
Mountain. The deep reservoir is confined by up to 1,000 feet
of altered andesitic volcanic mud flows (lahars), and muddy
gravely sand and muddy andesitic boulder conglomerate of
Eocene age called the Palm Park Formation (Seager, 1975).
At Radium Hot Springs, a low angle, north-dipping
rhyolite dike acts as the conduit or hydrogeologic discharge
window out of the deep Precambrian-Paleozoic reservoir for
thermal water flow to the surface across the Palm Park
aquitard (Witcher, 1988 and 2001). Because the shallow
rhyolite dike of probable Oligocene age is also highly
fractured, it forms a shallow outflow plume reservoir at
Radium Springs that ultimately discharges thermal water into
the near surface river gravels and sands of the Rio Grande.
The geothermal water at Radium Springs is a sodium
chloride type with total dissolved solids (TDS) between 3,600
and 3,700 mg/L (Witcher, 1995 and 2001). Because of the
high chloride content between 1,500 and 1,700 mg/L,
chemical corrosion becomes an issue, requiring titanium
alloys to be used in the heat exchangers.
Currently, three wells, drilled on private land, are
online for production purposes. A fourth well, Masson 36
well, is on a Federal BLM lease held by Masson and has not
gone into production due in part to the costly requirements of
installing and maintaining energy meters for production
monitoring to determine royalties. The Masson 36 well is
probably capable of producing more than 1,500 gpm of 210oF
(Witcher, 2001) (see vol. 22, no. 4 - December 2001 - issue of
the GHC Quarterly Bulletin for details on this latter well).
Pump and recovery tests of a shallow (<250 ft depth)
Masson geothermal well in the fractured rhyolite dike
reservoir indicates a transmissivity of about 45,000 gpd/ft
(Gross, 1986). Pump testing also shows that the shallow
GHC BULLETIN, DECEMBER 2002
reservoir has some hydraulic connection to the near surface
cold fresh water aquifer. Quantitative properties of the deep
reservoir are not known at this time. However, this reservoir
is isolated from near surface cold aquifers by up to 1,000 ft of
clayey aquitard (Palm Park Formation) and probably has
significant solution permeability in addition to fracture
permeability.
Besides the geothermal resource, the site also has a
cold near surface aquifer that is used for irrigation. This
aquifer is recharged from the nearby Rio Grande and consists
of fluvial sands and gravels. Because of the requirements of
irrigation with many crops grown in the greenhouses, a
reverse osmosis unit is used to tailor the freshwater quality to
specific needs.
GREENHOUSE GEOTHERMAL HEATING
The Masson greenhouse facility consists of 16 acres
of single wall fiberglass sides with double-poly roofs. Daytime
and summer cooling is provided with evaporative pads and
fans. The heating and cooling of the greenhouse environment
is monitored and controlled by computer.
The greenhouse space is heated by geothermal energy
from three wells that are located on private land. Masson 32
and 33 are shallow wells less than 350 ft depth in the rhyolite
dike reservoir and produce 165oF water. Masson 36 was
drilled during the last year to 800 ft depth and produces at
199oF water from the deep reservoir. Flows vary from 430
gpm in summer to 720 gpm in winter for Masson 32 and 33 ,
and 750 gpm in winter for Masson 36. The water is stored in
a newly construct 167,000 gallon storage tank that is used
mainly for night-time heating (Photo 2) , and then fed thru two
large titanium plate heat exchangers (Photos 3 and 4). The
geothermal water that is cooled to 110 to 130oF is then inject-
ed back into the shallow rhyolite reservoir with three shallow
(<250 ft depth) injection wells at a location on the outflow
plume down hydraulic gradient from the production wells.
In general, two types of heating arrangements are
done in the greenhouses. In the older greenhouses, plotted
plants are placed on benches underlain with finned tubing,
black plastic and iron pipe for heating. In the older
greenhouses, the finned tubing and piping is also run along the
43
 Maximum installed geothermal heating capacity is
44.1 x 106 Btu/hr (12.9 MWt). Maximum annual energy use
is probably around 76.8 x 109 Btu for a minimum capacity
factor of about 0.20. Annual energy use per acre is assumed
to be between 4.2 and 4.8 x 109 Btu/acre/yr based upon the
energy use of the SWTDI/NMSU Geothermal Greenhouse
Facility in Las Cruces.

CONCLUSION
In addition to lowering overall energy costs, the
Radium Springs geothermal resource gives Masson several
advantages in production that has enabled the company to be
less dependent upon other growers. For example, the company
is able to grow its own stock plants that would normally be
purchased from a plant specialist. Because of the economical
Photo 2. The 167,000-gallon storage tank. geothermal heat, the company is able to be its own supplier
for starter plant material, such as unrooted chrysanthemum
cuttings, for final grow out at Radium Springs. With this
approach, plants are more readily adapted to the environment
and production schedules can be reduced and product quality
improved.

REFERENCES
Gross, J., 1986. Results of Groundwater Monitoring and
Pump Testing in the Radium Springs Geothermal
Area, New Mexico. Malcolm Pirnie, Inc.(Phoenix,
AZ) Report prepared for the New Mexico State
Engineers Office and Alex R. Masson , Inc., 41 p.

Seager, W. R., 1975. Geologic Map and Sections of South

Half San Diego Mountain Quadrangle, New
Mexico. New Mexico Bureau of Mines and
Photo 3. The two new plate heat exchangers. Mineral Resources Geologic Map 35, 1:24,000 scale.

Seager, W. R.; Mack, G. H.; Raimonde, M. S. and R. G. Ryan,

1986. Laramide Basement-Cored Uplift and Basins
in South-Central New Mexico, New Mexico
Geological Society 37th Annual Fall Field
Conference Guidebook, p. 120-130.

Whittier, J.; Schoenmackers, R. and J. C. Witcher, 1991.

Geothermal Direct-Use A Successful Example of
Greenhouse Heating in New Mexico, Geothermal
Resources Council Transactions, v. 15, pp. 73-76.

Witcher, J. C., 1988. Geothermal Resources in Southwestern

New Mexico and Southeastern Arizona, New
Mexico Geological Society 39th Annual Fall Field
Conference Guidebook, pp. 191-197.
Photo 4. The existing plate heat exchanger (Jim
Witcher). Witcher, J. C., 2001. Geothermal Direct-Use Well for
Commercial Greenhouses Radium Springs, New
base of the greenhouse walls for heating. The most of the Mexico, Geo-Heat Center Quarterly Bulletin, v. 22,
newer greenhouses use floor heating and the potted plants are no. 4, pp. 1-7.
placed directly on the concrete floor. In addition to heating,
this arrangement conserves irrigation water and fertilizers by
avoiding runoff and promoting recycling. Polybutylene tubing
is embedded in the concrete floor for heating.

44 GHC BULLETIN, DECEMBER 2002

 J & K GROWERS
LAS CRUCES, NEW MEXICO
John W. Lund
Geo-Heat Center
J & K Growers are located adjacent to the New
Mexico State University (NMSU) campus in Las Cruces.
They use geothermal energy to heat 1.6 acres of 18 poly-
covered greenhouses and cold frames. At first the owners,
Kerry and John Krumrine, grew all potted plants and bedding
crops on the ground to limit costs, especially with the use of
in-ground heat. However, later they decided to put the crops
on benches and further, from the buried heating source to
increase air circulation, lower soil temperature and thus,
decrease disease and pest problems. Also, this limited the
stress of working at ground level. They initially produced
potted crops, mostly cyclamen, exacum, and geraniums;
however, they have changed to bedding plants as they have
proven to be less work and more profitable. They also grow
some poinsettias.
The Krumrines got their start in 1988 by leasing the
6,000-ft2 incubator greenhouse on NMSU administered by
the Southwest Technology Development Institute (STDI).
This greenhouse is provided to potential commercial growers
to get their feet wet and to see if the client really wants to
have a green thumb. After a year successfully growing
poinsettias, they moved to their present location on land
owned by a gravel pit business. The landowner drilled the
geothermal well by accident, but did not need the hot water to
wash his sand and gravel. Thus, the Krumrines uses only the
heat and return the water to a pond for the landowners use.
A 50-gpm pump draws water from the well at 148oF into a
30,000-gallon tank adjacent to the greenhouses.
The geothermal water is used directly from the tank
in the green-house heating systems which consists of 3-inch
black poly-butylene pipe main supply and return lines with
simple thermostats connected to spa pumps to push water
GHC BULLETIN, DECEMBER 2002
through the system. Each greenhouse of approximately
3,000-ft2 in area, has 2-inch branch lines that run at about
bench height (2-feet off the ground), and then 3/4-inch
branch lines from these pipes run underground at four to six
inches beneath the gravel greenhouse floor and buried in
sand. These underground loops are each about 1,000 feet in
length. An additional line heats 15,000 ft 2 of cold frames to
keep the crops from freezing.
The geothermal system proved its value when strong
winds collapsed one of the greenhouses. The below bench
and underground heating system kept the plants warm, even
though the Krumrines had to crawl on their hands and knees
to service the crops. An overhead system would have been
destroyed. They also have installed kerosene back-up heaters,
but only have had to use them once--which created an
unpleasant odor in the greenhouses.
The cost to operate the heating system is about 60
percent of natural gas heat costs. The hot water bill at the
peak (about four weeks out of the year) is around $500 per
month (1992 figures), and considerably less the rest of the
year. The only drawback is that since the geothermal water
is used directly in the heating system, calcite deposits have
built up inside the pipes reducing the flow and heat output.
The well is on federal land; thus, a royalty is paid based on an
annual average energy use per acre.
This material was summarized and edited from an
article in Greenhouse Manager magazine (June, 1992) by
Sami Harman Thomas title: Geothermal Energy Fuels
Success - New Mexico Couple Find Down-to-Earth Heat
Supply, pp. 56-60, and from the Editor/Authors visit to the
site (see page 30, Figure 1, for location map).
45
 GEOTHERMAL CARBON DIOXIDE
FOR USE IN GREENHOUSES
M.G. Dunstall (1) and G. Graeber (2)
1. Geothermal Institute, The University of Auckland, N.Z.
2. University of Stuttgart, Germany and Geothermal Institute
INTRODUCTION
Geothermal fluids often contain carbon dioxide, which is
a very effective growth stimulant for plants in greenhouses.
Studies have shown that as CO2 concentration is increased
from a normal level of 300 ppm (mmol/kmol) to levels of
approximately 1000 ppm crop yields may increase by up to
15% (Ullmann's Encyclopedia of Industrial Chemistry, 1989).
It is suggested that geothermal greenhouse heating offers a
further opportunity for utilization of the carbon dioxide present
in the fluid. The main difficulty is that plants react adversely
to hydrogen sulphide which is invariably mixed, at some
concentration, with the CO2 from geothermal fluids. Even very
low H2S concentrations of 0.03 mg/kg can have negative
effects on the growth of plants (National Research Council,
1979). Therefore, an appropriate purification process for the
CO2 must be used to avoid elevated H2S levels in the
greenhouses. The use of adsorption and absorption processes
is proposed.
Two purification processes have been modelled using the
ASPEN PLUS software package, using the Geothermal
Greenhouses Ltd. operation in Kawerau New Zealand as an
example. A greenhouse area of 8000 m2, which would create
a demand for approximately 20 kg CO2 per hour, was chosen
based on a proposed expansion at Kawerau. The Kawerau
operation currently takes geothermal steam (and gas) from a
high temperature 2-phase well to heat an area of 1650 m2.
Bottled carbon dioxide is utilized at a rate of about 50 kg per
day, to provide CO2 levels of 800 mg/kg when the greenhouse
is closed and 300 to 350 mg/kg whilst venting. In England and
the Netherlands, CO2 levels of 1000 mg/kg are often used
(Ullmann's Encyclopedia of Industrial Chemistry, 1989) and
similar concentrations are desired at Kawerau, but current costs
of 0.60 NZ$/kg for bottled CO2 are too high (Foster, 1995).
H2S LEVELS
Plants are very sensitive to elevated H2S levels in the air.
Small concentrations of 0.03 mg/kg (0.04 microg/liter) result
in damage to some plants while other plant species (e.g., lettuce
and sugar beets) show growth stimulation. However, all plants
show deleterious effects at higher H2S concentrations of 0.3
mg/kg (0.4 microg/liter) (National Research Council, 1979).
In this study a hydrogen sulfide concentration of 0.03 mg/kg is
considered acceptable if 1000 mg/kg CO2 is added to the
greenhouse atmosphere. The required CO2 purity is, therefore,
99.997%. An H2S content of 30 mg/kg or 40 ppm (mmol/
kmol) in the CO2, or less, has to be achieved by the purification
process.
Because individual plant species respond differently,
higher H2S concentrations might be tolerable. In many
8 GHC BULLETIN, JANUARY 1997
geothermal areas the characteristic "rotten-egg" odor of H2S
can be detected, indicating concentrations of 0.01 to 0.2 mg/kg
H2S; higher than the concentrations where negative effects on
plant growth have been observed. It is likely, therefore, that
many crops currently grown in geothermal greenhouses are
H2S tolerant species, requiring less intensive CO2 purification.
The effects of hydrogen sulfide on greenhouse staff are less
problematic; since, the concentrations are well below those set
for US industry at 15 mg/m3 (10 mg/kg) for an 8-hr workday
and a 40-hr work week.
Non-condensable gas is typically present at 1 to 10 wt%
in geothermal steam. Carbon dioxide is usually the main
component, with hydrogen sulfide the next most important
(approximately 1 to 5% of the CO2 concentration). Minor
components are nitrogen, ammonia, hydrogen, methane, and
other gases. In this work, a geothermal steam composition of
98.6 mol% H2O, 1.4 mol% CO2 and 0.03 mol% H2S was
assumed. All other components were neglected. The values
are typical for the main steam pipeline at Kawerau (Geothermal
& Nuclear Sciences Ltd., 1992). The steam condition was
assumed to be 12 bar (absolute) at saturation conditions.
ABSORPTION
An absorption process is suggested for recovery of CO2,
which will first require cooling of the fluid stream to condense
the steam fraction. This heat could be used to warm the
greenhouse. The water fraction remaining in the gases
depends on the condensation pressure and temperature.
Normally a low water fraction is an advantage, but the required
heat transfer area increases enormously as full condensation is
approached. Sizing of the heat rejection system is, therefore,
critical to the success of such an operation and sensitivity to
this parameter has been investigated.
Absorption is the uptake of gases by a liquid solvent. The
equilibrium solubility determines the distribution of the
absorbed material between the liquid and vapor phases.
Depending on its volatility, the solvent can also appear in the
vapor phase. During physical absorption, the absorbed
molecules become polarized but remain chemically unchanged.
In chemical absorption, a chemical conversion takes place.
Equilibrium between the phases is determined by general
thermodynamic principles and was predicted using theoretical
models available within the ASPEN PLUS package. As yet, no
comparison with between predicted and experimental data has
been made; but, experience with other simulations indicates
that accuracy greater than 80% can be expected for the
equilibrium prediction.
In an absorber, gas and liquid are brought in contact
counter currently. The solvent removes one or more
components from the gas mixture, more or less selectively.
Normally, the laden solvent is withdrawn from the bottom of
the absorber column and freed of the absorbed gas in a
recycling system. It is then returned to the absorber. In most
cases reversible processes are used and the dissolved
components are released chemically unchanged.
PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL ABSORPTION
The pressure dependence of physical and chemical
absorption is significantly different. Typical equilibrium lines
are shown in Figure 1, where loading capacity is presented as
a function of the dissolved component. Physical absorption
processes generally follow Henry's Law, so the liquid mol
fraction of a component depends strongly on partial pressure
(line b, Fig. 1). In chemical absorption, however, the
equilibrium line is sharply bowed. After chemical saturation
of the solvent, only weak physical absorption takes place. At
low partial pressure the absorption capacity of the chemical
solvent is much higher than that of the physical solvent;
whereas, at higher partial pressure the opposite applies.
Figure 1. Equilibrium lines for chemical and physical
absorption (Ullmann's Encyclopedia of Industrial
Chemistry, 1989).
The strong pressure dependence of physical solubility can
be utilized for solvent regeneration; since, pressure reduction
releases most of the absorbed gas. However, if the dissolved
components are chemically bound, less gas is released ( cch <
cph) and reboiling is almost always needed for regeneration
of a chemical absorbent. Heat required for reboiling could be
provided by hot geothermal fluids in this case.
In a physical absorption process, the solvent circulation
rate is nearly proportional to the quantity of the gas to be
cleaned. In contrast, the solvent circulation rate for a chemical
process is proportional to the quantity of gas to be removed.
This means chemical absorption processes are most economical
with low levels of impurity; whilst, physical processes are
more suitable for bulk removal of impurities. Examples of both
processes have been investigated. The main difficulty is to
find an appropriate absorbent that selectively absorbs H2S.
THE PHYSICAL ABSORPTION PROCESS
Water was selected as the absorbent for the physical
process, since it is cheap and freely available and H2S and CO2
GHC BULLETIN, JANUARY 1997
have different solubilities in water. Unfortunately, although
H2S is considerably more soluble than CO2, both gases are only
slightly soluble in water. Relatively high circulation rates are,
therefore, required. Solubility decreases with increasing
temperature, so absorption should take place at a low
temperature. Despite the low solubility and high flow rates in
this small scale application, a relatively simple process is
required, and the use of water is considered appropriate.
The flow sheet of an absorption process with water is
shown in Figure 2. After condensation and cooling to 120oC,
the steam/gas fraction is separated in a flash tank at 10 bar and
fed into the base of the absorber column; while, the separated
water is removed for further use or disposal. Cool water fed
into the top of the column absorbs the H2S and some CO2 as it
passes downward, and purified CO2 flows from the top of the
absorber.
The gas laden absorbent is then flashed at 3 bar, releasing
mainly CO2, which is recycled into the absorber column by the
compressor. Without recycling, much of the CO2 would be lost
with the H2S. Flash regeneration alone is not sufficient to
achieve the required CO2 purity so a steam heated regeneration
column is used as a final stage. At 133oC, almost all the
absorbed CO2 and H2S are released in this column and a water
purity of 0.5 ppb H2S is achieved. Heat needed for
regeneration could be supplied using the heat exchanger in
which the inlet steam is condensed; however, low cost steam
is available and direct injection of steam seems appropriate.
Finally, the water stream is recycled to the absorber after
rejecting heat to the greenhouse.
Unfortunately, the process as presented cannot reduce the
H2S to 40 ppm, due to a limitation on the purity of the
regenerated water. This process can remove H2S from the CO2
down to 400 ppm so residual H2S must then be removed using
an appropriate adsorption process. It is possible to achieve a
CO2 purity of 99.997 % (40 ppm H2S) with a more complex
absorption process using water, but the high water flow rates
and heat loads are unlikely to be economical.
Production of approximately 20 kg/hr CO2 requires an
inlet steam flow of 1200 kg/hr (~40 kg/hr CO2). After initial
separation 37 kg/hr CO2 is passed to the absorber, where 22 kg
of CO2 are recovered, at a water flow rate of 4000 kg/hr.
About 0.5 kg/hr of H2S is removed, reducing H2S content from
1.4% to 400 ppm. Unrecovered CO2 is removed with the H2S.
The predicted power requirement is 4.3 kW, made up of water
pump power (3.3 kW - efficiency 30%) and gas recycle
compressor power (1.0 kW - efficiency 72%). The CO2
recovery rate increases if the flash tank pressure is reduced (or
temperature increased); but, water circulation rates and
compressor power increase significantly. Regeneration
requires 800 kg/hr steam to heat the circulating water to 133oC
so approximately 1250 kWth of heat is removed from the steam
in total. It is anticipated that a reasonable proportion of this
heat can be used in the greenhouse.
One major constraint is the need to condense inlet steam
in the presence of very high levels of non-condensable gases.
This would require a large heat exchanger area and careful
attention to heat exchanger design. A range of higher
condensing temperatures have, therefore, been considered; with
9
 Figure 2. Flow sheet arrangement for absorption process with water.
absorber inlet temperature varied between 24 and 50oC. The
influence on the required water flow rate, electrical power
requirement, flow rate of regeneration steam, and water cooling
load can be seen in Figure 3. Production of purified CO2
increases by about 10% as the temperature increases from 24
to 50oC.
Gas solubility decreases at higher temperatures; so, the
absorber flow rate and regenerator steam flow both increase
with temperature. Pump power increases correspondingly,
although higher pump efficiency is predicted for larger pumps;
hence, the change in power curve slope at 32oC. The cooling
load also increases; but, due to an increased temperature
difference, the heat transfer area is reduced. Purified CO2
production increases slightly at higher temperatures; since, less
CO2 is absorbed with the H2S.
TEMPERATURE OF GAS INLET STREAM
The heat exchanger area required for condensing the inlet
steam depends on the outlet temperature. Lower temperatures
require disproportionately larger areas; as, the non-condensable
gas partial pressure rises in the condenser. Sensitivity to this
parameter was tested by varying temperature in cooler from 70
to 170oC.
As the water saturation temperature is approached (10 bar
- 180oC), the steam fraction increases significantly, heating the
bottom stage of the absorber column (Fig. 4). The increased
temperature reduces CO2 absorption and production of purified
gas increases. More gas is recycled, increasing compressor
power slightly. The cooling load reduces and the required heat
exchanger area is greatly decreased due to the a higher
temperature difference and higher water fraction in the
non-condensable gases. Because the electricity costs increase
significantly for a small increase in purified gas flow, it is
advisable to reduce the gas inlet temperature as far as possible
within economic limits imposed by the cooling load.
10
REQUIRED CARBON DIOXIDE PURITY
The purity achieved in the absorption process determines
the costs for the second purification stage, which is an
adsorption process. Water flow rates decrease significantly if
higher H2S levels in the purified CO2 are specified.
Compressor and pump power also reduce (Fig. 5). For
example, the power requirement decreases from 4.3 to 2.9 kW
if a CO2 purity of 99.90% instead of 99.96% is acceptable.
Furthermore, the flow rate of purified CO2 increases if higher
H2S levels are specified; since, less CO2 is absorbed with the
H2S. Increasing the H2S level from 200 to 1500 ppm provides
over 50% more CO2. Obviously it is important to carefully
evaluate the required CO2 purity for the first stage.
SIZE OF ABSORBER AND REGENERATION COLUMN
The vessel sizing option of the ASPEN PLUS program
has been used to estimate vessel size. For the base process
described, an absorber column size of 1.5 m height and 0.27 m
diameter with a random packing of 1-inch plastic pall rings
would be sufficient. Pressure drop in the column is negligible
due to the very low gas flow rate. The regeneration column
requires a larger diameter (0.47m), due to the higher flow rate,
once again assuming random packing with 1-inch plastic pall
rings. A packing height of 1 to 1.5 m is expected to be
sufficient. These values show that the vessels are relatively
small and pipes could probably be used to construct the
columns, keeping costs down.
CHEMICAL ABSORPTION PROCESS USING MDEA
Chemical absorption of unwanted hydrogen sulfide was
also investigated. Several solvents are available, and aqueous
amine solutions have been used extensively in the oil and gas
industry (Ullmann's Encyclopedia of Industrial Chemistry,
1989). In this horticultural application selective removal of
H2S is important. Good selectivity is shown by tertiary
GHC BULLETIN, JANUARY 1997
 Figure 3. Influence of water temperature on mass flow rates, cooling load and power requirements.

Figure 4. Influences of gas inlet temperature on water flow rate, power requirements, condenser cooling load, and purified
CO2 flow rate.

GHC BULLETIN, JANUARY 1997 11


Figure 5. Influence of the specified H2S fraction in the
purified CO2 on the absorption process.
alkanol-amines (Ullmann's Encyclopedia of Industrial
Chemistry, 1989; Savage, et al., 1986), of which the most
commonly used is an aqueous solution of n-methyldiethano-
lamine (MDEA). Chemical equilibria for the MDEA solvent
were calculated using the ASPEN PLUS built-in data bank.
Typically MDEA concentrations of 2.5 to 4.5 mol per liter
are used for acid gas absorption (Kohl, et al., 1995). For this
simulation a 4 M aqueous MDEA solution (27% by weight)
has been chosen.
An H2S concentration of 1000 ppm in the purified CO2
stream has been specified for this process. Residual H2S is
then removed in an appropriate adsorption process, as for the
physical absorption process. Although higher purities can be
achieved, a very high heat duty is required for solvent
regen-eration. Furthermore, as CO2 is absorbed with the H2S
it becomes difficult to selectively recover CO2.
The flow sheet for the simulated absorption process
with MDEA is shown in Figure 6. This process is similar to
that used for physical absorption with water with the
following modifications:
! Inlet steam (and gas) is condensed at 2.5 bar and
100oC, as a lower absorber pressure is acceptable;
! Absorber column temperatures are higher and the
MDEA solution enters the column at 70oC;
! Purified CO2 is cooled to 60oC in a gas cooler and
condensed water is separated out. This step was
included for satisfactory simulation of the H2S fraction
in the purified CO2, as the high water fraction in the
absorber gas outlet results in a low H2S mol fraction.
In practice, this step may not be necessary;
! The flash tank is slightly heated to improve CO2
recycling to the absorber; as, pressure reduction alone
is not sufficient;
! Regeneration of the chemical solvent requires the use
of a true reboiling process; where, the solvent is
evaporated and stripped with its own vapor, rather than
heating directly with steam containing H2S, and
12
! Water lost from the solvent in the gas outlet stream is
replaced by make-up water at a temperature of 30oC
before recycling to the absorber.
Compared to the absorption process with water the
main differences with MDEA are:
! Absorbent flow rate is substantially lower with 785
kg/hr required, compared to more than 4000 kg/hr;
! The pump and compressor are much smaller due to the
lower flow rate and the reduced pressure differences.
The power requirement is 0.4 kW, about 10% that of
the water system, and capital cost will be lower;
! Regenerator heat loads are relatively high (780 kW) at
the required purity (~50 ppm H2S). This heat load
could be met by condensing about 1200 kg/hr steam, so
initial condensation of the inlet steam/gas mixture
could supply the regenerator. Ultimately, most of this
heat is rejected from the regeneration column at lower
temperatures (~100oC) and much of it could be used in
the greenhouse;
! The circulating solvent requires just 26 kW of cooling
to achieve the required temperature of 70oC;
! The temperature of the purified gas is relatively high at
87oC, and
! Approximately 11 g/hr MDEA are lost in the waste gas
outlet stream. Cooling the outlet stream and recycling
the condensate can reduce this loss significantly. Only
trace amounts of MDEA are expected in the purified
CO2. Condensed water from the purified CO2 stream
should be recycled as it contains 120 ppm MDEA.
The MDEA absorption process has the advantage of
lower circulation rates, lower electricity demand, lower
pressures, and higher cooling temperatures. The
disadvantages compared with the water absorption system
are a higher heat requirement, lower CO2 purity and minor
losses of MDEA.
ADSORPTION PROCESS FOR FURTHER
PURIFICATION OF THE CO2
Purities achieved with either of the absorption
processes discussed are not sufficient for direct use of the
CO2 in greenhouses. Further purification is, therefore,
required to reduce H2S concentration from 400 or 1000 ppm
to 40 ppm or less. Approximately 5 to 20 g/hr of H2S has to
be removed in this final step, so a simple solution is an
adsorption process without adsorbent regeneration. The
advantages of an adsorption process are high selectivity and
a loading capacity that is almost independent of partial
pressure.
Selective adsorption of H2S can be achieved using
activated carbon. The loading capacity of 50-min activated
coconut-shell charcoal for H2S is approximately 10 to 25 %
by weight (i.e., 1 kg of activated charcoal can adsorb 100 to
250 g of H2S) (Kohl, et al., 1995). Other activated carbon
products are expected to have similar capacities. Assuming
a loading capacity of 10%, approximately 25 to 100 g/hr
GHC BULLETIN, JANUARY 1997
 Figure 6. Flow scheme for chemical absorption with MDEA solution.
activated carbon would be required for final purification of
CO2 that had been pre-treated in one of the absorption
processes. The costs of activated carbon products are 0.70 to
5.50 $US/kg (Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology, 1992).
Material costs for this adsorption process are, therefore,
relatively low. However, the operating cost involved in
exchanging the activated carbon filters should be considered.
Assuming electricity costs of 0.07 $US/kWh and a cost of
3.5 $US/kg activated carbon, the total costs are approximately
0.40 $US/hr for the process with water and 0.35 $US/hr for the
process with MDEA. The costs for both methods are similar
because the achieved purity with the MDEA process is lower
than that achievable with the water process, increasing the
activated carbon consumption. The value of the purified gas is
approximately 8.4 $US/hr or 70,000 $US/year, which is many
times greater than the costs calculated above (approximately
3,500 $US/year).
The required quantity of activated carbon depends on the
purity achieved by the absorption process and an economic
optimum for the combination of both processes requires careful
further study.
CONCLUSION
The use of geothermal carbon dioxide for growth
stimulation of plants is possible, if a purification process is
used to reduce the initial hydrogen sulfide content. Alone, an
absorption process using water or aqueous MDEA is not
feasible at the required purity. However, both processes are
suitable for bulk removal of H2S and it is possible to remove
residual H2S with an activated carbon adsorption process.
Power requirements for purification of 20 kg CO2/hr are
relatively small: 4.3 kW for physical absorption with water
and 0.4 kW for chemical absorption with MDEA. Activated
carbon consumption is approximately 20 to 100 g/hr. Running
costs are approximately 0.40 $US/hr for the physical process
with water and 0.35 $US/hr for the chemical process with
MDEA. The product value is about 8.4 $US/hr; so, either of
these combination processes appear economically attractive
compared to current use of bottled CO2.
GHC BULLETIN, JANUARY 1997
REFERENCES
Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology, 1992. Carbon
(activated), Kirk - Othmer, vol. 4, p. 1022, 4th ed., John
Wiley & Sons, New York.
Foster, B., 1995. Personal communication. Geothermal
Greenhouses Ltd, Kawerau, New Zealand.
Geothermal & Nuclear Sciences Ltd, July 1992, June 1992.
Gas Analysis of Steam at Tasman Lumber, Kawerau.
Kohl, A. and F. Riesenfeld, 1995. Gas Purification, 4th Ed,
Gulf Publishing Co., Houston, London, Paris, Tokyo.
National Research Council, 1979. Hydrogen Sulfide,
Sub-committee on Hydrogen Sulfide, Committee on
Medical and Biologic Effects of Environmental
Pollutants, University Park Press, Baltimore.
Savage, D.; Funk, E.; Yu, W. and G. Astarita, 1986. Selective
Absorption of H2S and CO2 in Aqueous Solutions of
Methyldiethanolamine, Ind. Eng. Chem. Fundam, p.
326-330.
Ullmann's Encyclopedia of Industrial Chemistry, 1989.
Carbon Dioxide. 5 th ed., vol. A5, p. 165 - 183, VCH
Verlagsgesellschaft, Weinheim, New York.
Ullmann's Encyclopedia of Industrial Chemistry, 1989.
Absorption Processes. 5 th ed., vol. A12, p. 249 - 260,
VCH Verlagsgesellschaft, Weinheim, New York.
Ullmann's Encyclopedia of Industrial Chemistry, 1989.
Hydrogen Sulfide. 5 th ed., vol. A13, p. 467-485, VCH
Verlagsgesellschaft, Weinheim, New York.
13
 GREENHOUSE CLIMATE FACTORS
Kiril Popovski
Faculty of Technical Sciences
Bitola University
Bitola, Macedonia
INTRODUCTION
There are many examples of geothermally heated
greenhouses throughout the world, even in warmer climates.
The main reason for using geothermal heating systems is that
greenhouses are one of the largest energy consumer in
agriculture. This concentrated demand for energy can be
satisfied, in the case of geothermal, by siting facilities near
wells even though they are located far from urban areas and
industrial concentrations.
The reasons for this high energy requirement are in the
nature of the greenhouse construction itself:
! Greenhouses are typically constructed of light materials
that have very poor insulating qualities, and
! The "internal" climate of the greenhouse are usually
significantly different than the external one, especially
during the colder seasons.
GREENHOUSE CLIMATE
One of the main tasks in greenhouse construction is to
optimize the conditions for plant development, generally
during the off-season from normal outside field production.
The "internal" or greenhouse climate factors required for the
optimal plant development involve photosynthesis and
respiration.
Photosynthesis, or the active process, is the formation of
carbon dioxide through solar radiation and can be expressed by
the following simplified balance equation:
6CO2 + 6H2O + 2,810 kJ = C6H12O6 + 6O2 (1)
On the contrary, respiration is expressed as:
C6H12O6 + 6O2 = 6CO2 + 6H2O + 2,810 kJ (2)
These equations do not represent the real situation, which
is more complicated, but can be used to define the energy
aspect of greenhouse climate: the water transport, CO2
separation and energy intake, along with the creation of
chlorophyll and O2 that result from the natural or artificial
application of light.
It is not possible to understand greenhouse energy
demands in order to calculate heat (or coldness) requirements,
without the essential knowledge of the "greenhouse climate."
This climate is composed of parameters that are variable and
interdepedndent, and are influenced by external climate
changes, the stage of the plant development and other factors.
14
In principal, four physical phenomena are responsible for
the differences between greenhouse and external climatic
conditions:
1. Solar radiation, in particular the short waves, penetrates
the glass or plastic covering of the greenhouse practically
without any loss. On reaching the soil surface, plant
canopy, heating installation, etc., the radiation changes to
long-wave, and can no longer pass through the covering,
or with difficulty. Most of the radiation is trapped within
the greenhouse space, raising the inside temperature;
2. The enclosed air within the greenhouse is stagnant: local
air velocity is much smaller than it is outside and the
effects of temperature transfer are entirely different;
3. The concentration of plant mass in the greenhouse space
is much higher than outside. Artificial control of
humidity and condensation clearly creates a different
mass transfer from outside the greenhouse, and
4. The presence of heating and other installations changes
some of the energy characteristics of greenhouse climate.
Taking into account the real meaning of the equation (1)
and (2), and the associated physical phenomena, it is possible
to simplify the definition of greenhouse climate and to state
that it is a physical process of predominantly energy related
character. The main processes are the water transport between
the plant canopy, air and soil in the greenhouse, the
chlorophyll composition and degradation under the influence
of solar light, energy transfer, and CO2 and O2 flow.
The values of these parameters, their interdependencies
and changes determine the limiting conditions and character of
greenhouse climate.
LIGHT
Light is the most significant parameter for the plant
development and life. All the active life process in it can be
achieved only in the presence and active influence of light.
When speaking about natural light, meaning solar light,
it is necessary to distinguish:
! Solar radiation with specific influence to the life
processes of the plants, and
! Solar radiation with energy related influence to the
plants, directly or indirectly through the influence of the
environment.
GHC BULLETIN, JANUARY 1997
 By the use of different scientific methodologies and
investigations of changes in photosynthetical, phototropical,
photomorphogenical and other plant activities, it is found that
only the part of total solar spectrum between 400 and 700 nm
influences significantly plants life processes (Figure 1). That
determines the quality of transparent materials for greenhouse
cover it must be maximally transparent to this part of the
solar spectrum.
Figure 1. Average specter of absorption "in vitro" of
chlorophyll pigments (Dogniaux & Nisen, 1975).
The intensity of the energy related part of the total
spectrum of solar radiation (i.e., the infra-red one) offers the
necessary energy to the plant (Equation 1). Depending on its
intensity, life processes are more or less active (Figure 2). Up
to some characteristical levels (different for different species)
life processes increase their activities; but, after a point, they
start to decrease. Below and above these characteristical light
intensities, there is no life activity in the plant. Below, because
active life processes need light to be activated. Above,
because the plant is over- heated and processes of "cooling"
are activated.
Figure 2. Changes of photosynthetical activity during the
summer day (Kamenev, 1975).
GHC BULLETIN, JANUARY 1997
To improve light conditions, artificial light is used when
the natural one is not available, or shaded when the light
intensity is too high.
Light intensity also affects the values of other parameters
of greenhouse climate.
AIR TEMPERATURE
Air temperature influences the energy balance of the
plant canopy through the convective heat transfer to the plant
leaves and bodies. Depending on the character of the air
movement in the greenhouse, it is more or less near the
temperature of the plant itself.
The optimal level of the air temperature in the
greenhouse depends on the photosynthetical activity of the
plant in question, under the influence of the intensity of solar
radiation on disposal (Figure 3) (i.e., for each light intensity,
there is an optimal air [leaf] temperature, enabling maximum
photosynthetical activity).
Figure 3. Photosynthesis activity vs. light and air
temperature conditions (tomato culture)(Kamenev,
1975).
Due to the changeable character of greenhouse climate,
it is not possible to provide the "optimal" air temperature for
some plants due to interdependencies of the light intensity and
other parameters of greenhouse climate.
Trials to define norms for optimal temperature values or
intervals should not be understood as a tool for determination
of optimal greenhouse climate (Table 1), but as a basis
orientation for the choice of design values for calculation of
greenhouse heat requirements and consumption.
SOIL OR PLANT BASE TEMPERATURE
Soil, or plant base temperature influences the energy
balance of the plant canopy, too. The influence is by
conduction heat transfer directly between the soil structure and
through convection between the plant roots and water flow
around them.
Through a great number of experiments and
investigations, it is proven that:
! Optimal soil (or base) temperature depends on the stage
of development of the plant in question (Table 2);
15
Table 1. USSR Norms for Optimal Values of Air Temperature and Humidity in Greenhouses for Vegetable Cultivation
(Source: Kamenev, 1975)

Inside Air Temperature (oC)

Relative
Development Harvesting Humidity
Young of the Air
Vegetable Germination Day* Day* Night Day Night Plants (%)
____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Cucumbers 17-18 22-25 27-30 17-18 25-30 18-20 13-15 85-95

Watermelon
and melons 17-18 22-25 27-30 17-18 25-30 18-20 13-15 65-75

Tomatoes,
apple, paprika,
and beans 10-12 20-22 25-27 10-13 22-28 15-17 8-10 50-60

Lettuce, celery
and garlic 8-9 17-18 20-26 8-12 70-80

Spinach and
parsley 8-9 15-16 20-21 8-9 70-80

Radish
and cabbage 6-7 12-13 16-18 7-8 65-75
___________________________________________________
* Inside design temperature ranges for different crops.

! Optimal soil (or base) temperature depends on the light
intensity available, and
! Soil (or base) temperature influences the value of the
optimal air temperature (i.e., higher soil temperature
requires lower air temperature and vice versa).
Table 2. Optimal Soil Temperatures for the Tomato
Culture
________________________________________________
It is necessary to stress that moving away from the
optimal values influences the development of the root system
of the plant, in the production capacity and the quality of the
product. Going to lower values means decreasing production
and going to higher values means drying of the root system,
and in that way also reducing the production capacity and
quality of the products.
Thus, if knowing the nature and requirements of plants,
it is possible to influence significantly the heat consumption of
a greenhouse through the balance between the air and soil
temperatures during the plant cultivation.

Optimal Soil Temperature Intervals CO2 CONCENTRATION

Low Intensity Strong Intensity Normal CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is about
Phase of of Light of Light 0.03%. In the case of a closed room under influence of high
Development (oC) (oC) light intensity and, therefore, high photosynthetical activity
________________________________________________ (Equation 1), it changes quickly. During a bright day, its
concentration can decrease to 0.01% in only a couple of hours
Development for a good tight greenhouse.
before flowering 13-14 17-20 As the CO2 is an active participant of the chlorophyll
assimilation, it is a greenhouse parameter of crucial
Flowering 15-16 19-22 importance. Also through a long process of experimentation
and investigation, it is proven that:
Harvesting 20-22 23-25
________________________________________________

16 GHC BULLETIN, JANUARY 1997

! For constant temperature conditions in a greenhouse, CO2
concentration influences directly the intensity of
photosynthetical activity, and
! Optimal concentration of CO2 in the greenhouse depends
directly on the light intensity on disposal (Figure 4).
Figure 4. Optimal concentration of CO2 in the cultivation
area of a greenhouse depending on the light intensity
(Denis, et al., 1978).
Through the ventilation of greenhouse closed space with
5-6 (vol/h) air exchange, it is possible to keep about a 0.02%
CO2 concentration. It is a compromise, because going to 9-10
(vol/h) exchange enables one to keep about a 0.03%
concentration, but this influences significantly the heat
consumption of the greenhouse. Middle- and
northwest-European climatic conditions require the use of
artificial measures to keep the necessary optimal CO2
concentration; but, in the southern regions, usually controlled
ventilation is sufficient.
AIR MOVEMENT IN THE GREENHOUSE
The character and velocity of the air movement in the
greenhouse influences:
! The intensity of the heat transfer between the air and
plant canopy, and
! The intensity of the water exchange between the air and
plant canopy.
At the same time, both processes are directly connected
to the energy balance of the plant canopy and, in that way, the
intensity of the life processes in it.
It is found that velocities between 0.2 and 0.7 m/s
provides the optimal heat exchange if the air stream is vertical
(i.e., from bottom to the top of the plant). With some types of
heating installations, it is easy to obtain this; but, with most of
them, it creates a negative influence in the heat consumption of
the greenhouse. Before making the final choice of the heating
installation for a greenhouse, it is very important to investigate
its positive and negative sides connected to the character of air
movement in the greenhouse interior.
GHC BULLETIN, JANUARY 1997
WATER TRANSPORT IN A GREENHOUSE
Water transport between the plant canopy and the
environment is one of the most important parameters of the
photosynthetical activity (Equation 1). It has been proved that
it depends mainly on:
! The light intensity on disposal (Figure 5);
! Temperature of the environment (Figure 5), and
! Root characteristics of the plant in question in
combination with the "ability" of the cultivation base to
offer the necessary water quantity, but also on the air
humidity of the plant environment.
Figure 5. H2O exchange of tomato plants before flowering.
The last parameters are of particular interest, since they
influence the greenhouse climate characteristics. There is a
direct relationship between the air humidity and soil moisture
(or artificial cultivation base characteristics) in a greenhouse.
Air humidity directly influences transpiration of the plant
leaves. Optimal intervals are rather small and difficult to be
achieve in a closed room, filled with crops of high
transpiration (Table 1). Lower humidity means drying of the
plant and reduced production. Higher humidity produces more
leaves, lower quality of fruits and sensitive to a number of
plant diseases.
The intensity of the water transport of the plants depends
directly on the light intensity (Curve ETP outside (light
conditions), Figure 6). It is normally smaller in greenhouses
and is connected to the light transmittance of their material
(Curve ETP inside (light conditions), Figure 6). Depending on
the stage of the plant root development and air humidity in the
closed room, real water transport is smaller even than the
inside one (Curve actual ETP, Figure 6).
17
Figure 6. Potential evapo-transpiration (ETP) in a
greenhouse (Dogniaux, Nisen, 1975).

HEATING INSTALLATION
Heating installation is an active parameter of the
greenhouse climate because it influences:

! The character and velocity of the internal air movement

(Figure 7);

! The radiation intercepted by crops by exposure pipe view Figure 8. Effect of radiation interception by crops on the
factor to the heating elements, and in that way, pipe view factor of heating pipes (Okada and
tempera-ture distribution of the plant leaves (Figure 8), Takakura, 1978).
and

! Vertical and horizontal distribution of internal air

temperatures (Figure 9), and the effect on the plant leaves
temperatures.

Figure 9. Vertical air temperature profiles in a greenhouse

heated by different types of heating installations.

The type and location of the heating installations

Figure 7. Internal air velocity as a function of temperature
difference between the pipe surface and the air
(Slanghellni, 1983).
influences the temperature distribution and internal air
movements (i.e., energy distribution and water transport of the
plant canopy), which ultimately impacts the intensity and
distribution of the photosynthesis.

18 GHC BULLETIN, JANUARY 1997

ENVIRONMENT
The environment of a greenhouse includes the outside air,
atmosphere and soil around it. Since the greenhouse climate
is enclosed by transparent partitions, it is actively influenced
by the outside environment.
A transparent wall has no (or very small) thermal inertia
and each change of outside temperature conditions directly
influences the ones in the greenhouse. The wall is transparent
to a significant part of the solar radiation spectrum, and each
change of it means a change of the inside climate conditions.
Numerous leaks and the ventilation openings allow the outside
air to enter in the greenhouse. Each change in velocity and
direction changes directly the temperature distribution in the
greenhouse. During the night and cloudy days, the atmosphere
radiates "coldness" to the greenhouse interior and changes the
temperature distribution of the plant canopy. Exposed parts are
always colder than non-exposed ones (Figure 8).
OPTIMAL GREENHOUSE CLIMATE
When taking into account Equation 1 and the known
dependence of the plant life processes on the light composition
and intensity, the "greenhouse" climate is a rather simple
physical quantity:
GK = F(I, Ta>, CO2, H2O) (3)
where:
I = Light intensity (W/m2, lumens)
Ta = Plant leaves temperature (K)
CO2 = CO2 concentration in the air around the plant
canopy (%), and
H2O = Internal air humidity and soil (plant base)
humidity (i.e., moisture) (%).
Temperatures and partly the light are quantities of an
energy nature and the others are not.
For each plant and its stage of development, it is possible
to define the optimal values of influencing parameters, and
then it is necessary to keep them constant. That should result
in maximum production results and quality of the fruits and
flowers. In a number of laboratories, it has been
experimentally proven that this way of thinking is a correct
one.
Unfortunately, it has also been proven that it is difficult
to make a profit. Even distribution of light with a defined
spectrum and intensity means extremely expensive lightening
installation and high development costs. The solution is in the
use of natural light when available. Even distribution of
temperatures in the plant canopy means very expensive
insulated partitions between the cultivation room and the
environment, and the use of expensive air-conditioning
installations. The solution is in the use of natural heat on
disposal (solar radiation) and the use of acceptable cheap
heating installations.
The general solution using transparent partitions between
two climates has been accepted. It allows the capture of the
available natural light and particularly the energy part of it.
GHC BULLETIN, JANUARY 1997
Unfortunately, such a partition cannot be a real barrier
between two different climates. It allows light, heat and air
transfer between them and, in that way, makes them
interdependent. The outside climate becomes an active
participant in the creation of the inside one.
With such pre-conditions, a rather simple physical
quantity composed of three parameters (Ta, CO2 and H2O)
which are depended on the fourth one (I) with known
characteristics, becomes extremely complicated. Even
nonenergy parameters change the character of energy
producing ones. For example, to keep the necessary CO2
concentration, it is necessary to ventilate the greenhouse (heat
loss) or to produce it in an artificial way (heat gain); to keep
the necessary air humidity, it is necessary to ventilate the
greenhouse (heat loss or gain) or to make artificial
humidification (heat loss); etc. Optimal CO2 concentration
depends on the light intensity and temperatures. Higher
temperatures--higher CO2 concentration (i.e., additional
ventilation and temperature drop as a consequence of the
outside colder air). Higher inside temperatures provoke
stronger photosynthesis activity, which means higher plant
transpiration (i.e., higher air humidity) then necessary and
requiring additional ventilation, which means temperature drop
(additional heating is necessary).
These make the greenhouse climate a complicated
physical quantity with the following characteristics:
! Composed of the long list of parameters of the inside and
outside greenhouse environment. They are
interdependent between themselves in very different and
often opposite ways;
! All the involved parameters are directly or indirectly of
an energy nature. They cause or are the reason for
creation of energy transfers in the greenhouse and to its
environment, and
! Taking into account that all the parameters which are
directly involved in the process of photosynthesis depend
on the light characteristics and intensity, greenhouse
climate is of a changeable nature:
GK = F(t) (4)
Two very important conclusions can be extracted from
that:
! The composition of optimal conditions for the plant
development ("optimal greenhouse climate") involves a
long list of influencing parameters with different
influence on the crucial ones and different inertia to the
short-time changes of light conditions on disposal.
Therefore, one can speak not about "optimal climate,"
but about "optimal compromise" of influencing factors to
the plant life conditions, and
19
! Even if the nature and interdependencies of the
parameters of the greenhouse climate are known, it is not
possible to define a final mathematical expression of it
because some illogical "estimations" are involved.
They cause the following consequences:
! One dimensional mathematical expression of
"greenhouse climate" and, therefore, "optimal greenhouse
climate" doesn't exists. It is always a set of expressions
defining different physical quantities of known mutual
interdependencies, and
! Composition of the optimal compromises is always
connected to a chosen number of influencing parameters,
in order to simplify the calculations and the selection of
installations and equipment for the greenhouse climate
creation. Usually, that is the internal air temperature,
CO2 concentration and air humidity, which depend on the
light intensity available. The necessary corrections,
connected to the plant, construction, installations and
local climate specifics are determined by empirical
simulations, based on the previous investigations.
It is very important to always have in mind that even the
greenhouse climate is composed of energy parameters and,
therefore, it is of an energy nature. Its real nature is biological
and complex.
20
Any mathematical expression of it gives only an
approximation. It is never, and cannot be complete and
precise.
REFERENCES
Denis, P.; Dumont, M.; Fourcy, A. and J. Damagnez. Les
Cultures Sous Abri a L'Heure Economies d'Energie,
Report CFA-R-4956, Centre d"Etudes Nucleaires de
Grenoble, 1978.
Dogniaux, R. and A. Nisen. Traite De L'Enclarage Naturel
Des Serres Et Abris Pour Vegetaux, Inst. Royal
Meteorologique de Belgique, Bruxelles, 1975.
Kamenev, P. N. Otoplenie I Ventilacija, Strojizdat, Moskva,
1975.
Masumi, O. and Y. Takakura. The Heating Load of
Greenhouses, Heat Transmission in the Greenhouse with
Pipe Heating Systems, Acta Horticulturne 1978,
Wageningen.
Okada. The Heating Load of Greenhouses, Heat
Transmission in the Greenhouse with Pipe Heating
Systems, Acta Horticulturne, 1978.
Stanghellini, C. Transpiration of Greenhouse Crops - An Aid
to Climate Management, Inst. IMAG, Wageningen,
1987.
GHC BULLETIN, JANUARY 1997
GEO-HEAT CENTER GREENHOUSE BULLETIN ARTICLES

Geothermal Greenhouse Development, Lienau, Paul J. --Spring 1990, Vol. 12, No. 3.
http://geoheat.oit.edu/pdf/bulletin/bi006.pdf
Geothermal Greenhouse Heating, Rafferty, Kevin --Spring 1990, Vol. 12, No. 3.
http://geoheat.oit.edu/pdf/bulletin/bi007.pdf
Greenhouse Heating with Low-Temperature Geothermal Resources in Lake County,
California, Dellinger, Mark and Gib Cooper --Spring 1990, Vol. 12, No. 3.
http://geoheat.oit.edu/pdf/bulletin/bi005.pdf
Greenhouses - A New State of Growth in Utah, Lienau, Paul J. --November 1994, Vol. 16,
No. 1.
http://geoheat.oit.edu/pdf/bulletin/bi064.pdf
Agriculture and Aquaculture Cascading the Geothermal Way, Lund, John W. --November
1994, Vol. 16, No.1.
http://geoheat.oit.edu/pdf/bulletin/bi065.pdf
Geothermal Energy: The Heat is on the New Mexico Greenhouses, Berghage, R.;
Schoenmackers, R.; Witcher, J. C. --November 1994, Vol. 16, No. 1.
http://geoheat.oit.edu/pdf/bulletin/bi066.pdf
Greenhouse Heating Equipment Selection Spreadsheet, Rafferty, Kevin --November 1994,
Vol. 16, No. 1.
http://geoheat.oit.edu/pdf/bulletin/bi067.pdf
Geothermal Greenhouses in Kyushu, Japan, Lienau, Paul --May 1996, Vol. 17, No. 2.
http://geoheat.oit.edu/bulletin/bull17-2/art3.pdf
Fossil Fuel-Fired Peak Heating for Geothermal Greenhouses, Rafferty, Kevin --January
1997, Vol. 18, No. 1.
http://geoheat.oit.edu/bulletin/bull18-1/art1.pdf
Geothermal Greenhouse Development Update, Lienau, Paul J. --January 1997, Vol. 18, No. 1.
http://geoheat.oit.edu/bulletin/bull18-1/art2.pdf
Geothermal Carbon Dioxide for Use in Greenhouses, Dunstall, M.G. and G. Grarber
--January 1997, Vol. 18, No. 1.
http://geoheat.oit.edu/bulletin/bull18-1/art3.pdf
Greenhouse Climate Factors, Popovski, Kiril --January 1997, Vol. 18, No. 1.
http://geoheat.oit.edu/bulletin/bull18-1/art4.pdf
Demonstration Geothermal Project at Ribeira Grande (Azores, Portugal), Popovski, Kiril,
et al. --June 1998, Vol. 19, No. 2.
http://geoheat.oit.edu/bulletin/bull19-2/art4.pdf
Geothermal Greenhouses at Kawerau, Dunstall, Michael and Brian Foster --September 1998,
Vol. 19, No. 3.
http://geoheat.oit.edu/bulletin/bull19-3/art6.pdf
Geothermal Orchids, McLachlan, Alistair --September 1998, Vol. 19, No. 3.
http://geoheat.oit.edu/bulletin/bull19-3/art9.pdf
Feasibility of Geothermal Agricultural Projects at the Beginning of XXI Century, Popovski,
Kiril and Sanja Popovska-Vasilevska --June 2001, Vol. 22, No. 2.
http://geoheat.oit.edu/bulletin/bull22-2/art7.pdf
Small Greenhouse Heating, Rafferty, Kevin --September 2001, Vol. 22, No. 3.
http://geoheat.oit.edu/bulletin/bull22-3/art5.pdf
Geothermal Utilization in Agriculture in Kebili Region, Southern Tunisia, Mohamed,
Mouldi Ben --June 2002, Vol. 23, No. 2.
http://geoheat.oit.edu/bulletin/bull23-2/art6.pdf
New Greenhouses in Klamath Falls, Lund, John W. --September 2002, Vol. 23, No. 3.
http://geoheat.oit.edu/bulletin/bull23-3/art3.pdf
Geothermal Energy at NMSU, Witcher, James C; Schoenmackers, Rudi; Polka, Ron; Cunniff,
Roy A. --December 2002, Vol. 23, No. 4.
http://geoheat.oit.edu/bulletin/bull23-4/art7.pdf
Lighting Dock KGRA, Witcher, James C.; Lund, John W.; Seawright, Damon, E. --December
2002, Vol. 23, No. 4.
http://geoheat.oit.edu/bulletin/bull23-4/art8.pdf
Masson Radium Springs Farm, Witcher, James, C. --December 2002, Vol. 23, No. 4.
http://geoheat.oit.edu/bulletin/bull23-4/art9.pdf
J & K Growers, Las Cruces, NM, Lund, John W. --December 2002, Vo.. 23, No. 4.
http://geoheat.oit.edu/bulletin/bull23-4/art10.pdf
Milgro-Newcastle Greenhouses, Newcastle, Utah, --June 2003, Vol. 24, No. 2.
http://geoheat.oit.edu/bulletin/bull24-2/art7.pdf
Canyon Bloomers (Formerly M&L Greenhouses) - Hagerman, Idaho, Culver, Gene --March
2004, Vol. 25, No. 1.
http://geoheat.oit.edu/bulletin/bull25-1/art7.pdf
Crystal Hot Springs - Salt Lake County, Allred, Jon --December 2004, Vol. 25, No. 4.
http://geoheat.oit.edu/bulletin/bull25-4/art6.pdf
Milgro Greenhouses, Newcastle, Utah, Allred, Jon --December 2004, Vol. 25, No.
4.http://geoheat.oit.edu/bulletin/bull25-4/art8.pdf
Castlevalley Greenhouses, Newcastle, Blackett, Robert; Lund, John W. --December 2004, Vol.
25, No. 4.
http://geoheat.oit.edu/bulletin/bull25-4/art9.pdf
Utah Hot Spring and Allan Plant Company Greenhouses, Blackett, Robert and John W.
Lund. --December 2004, Vol. 25, No. 4.
http://geoheat.oit.edu/bulletin/bull25-4/art11.pdf
Greenhouse Heating with Geothermal Heat Pump Systems, Chiasson, Andrew --March 2005,
Vol. 26, No. 1.
http://geoheat.oit.edu/bulletin/bull26-1/art2.pdf
Chena Hot Springs, Lund, John W.,September 2006, Vol. 27, No. 3.
http://geoheat.oit.edu/bulletin/bull27-3/art2.pdf
 Section 10
FARM BILL INFORMATION

INTRODUCTION

The Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (the Farm Bill) established the Renewable
Energy Systems and Energy Efficiency Improvements Program under Title IX, Section
9006. This program currently funds grants and loan guarantees to agricultural producers and
rural small business for assistance with purchasing renewable energy systems and making energy
efficiency improvements.

This section includes two templates that were developed in 2006 to help with the Farm Bill
application. One is for the direct-use of geothermal and the second one is for a geothermal heat
pump application.

A link has been provided below for more information on the Farm Bill.

http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/rbs/farmbill/
 Fizer Dairy Geothermal Heating

A Proposal Prepared for the United States Department

of Agriculture
2002 Farm bill Initiative: The Renewable Energy And
Energy Efficiency Program
USDA Farm Bill Section 9006

For Purchase and Installation of a Renewable Energy

System at the Fizer Dairy Farm in Berger Idaho

This template has been prepared as a guide to allow users to see the type of information
required to receive grant funding from the USDA Section 9006 program. This template
uses fictitious names, dollar values and project descriptions. It was prepared as an
example of what a complete proposal submitted to the USDA under the Renewable Energy
Systems guidelines might look like. This template was not prepared by and has not been
approved or scored by the USDA.

The project described in this proposal is for purchasing and installing a Renewable
Energy System. If this project was being considered as an Energy Efficiency Improvement
project, it would require slightly different information, including an energy efficiency audit.

February 2006
 Table of Contents

Project Summary ....................................................................................................................1

Eligibility.................................................................................................................................2
Applicant Eligibility ............................................................................................................2
Project Eligibility ...............................................................................................................2
Operation Description .......................................................................................................3
Financial Information.........................................................................................................4
Matching Funds ................................................................................................................4
Project ...................................................................................................................................5
Technical ...............................................................................................................................7
Introduction ......................................................................................................................7
Geothermal Direct Use Requirements ................................................................................7
I. Qualifications of Project Team .........................................................................7
II. Agreements and Permits .................................................................................8
III. Resource Assessment ....................................................................................9
IV. Design and Engineering ..................................................................................9
V. Project Development Schedule ...................................................................... 10
VI. Financial Feasibility....................................................................................... 12
VII. Equipment Procurement ................................................................................ 13
VIII. Equipment Installation ................................................................................... 13
IX. Operations and Maintenance......................................................................... 13
X. Decommissioning ......................................................................................... 14
Appendix A - Engineering Design .......................................................................................... 15
Process Diagram ............................................................................................................ 16
Heating Loads Summary ................................................................................................. 17
Heating Exchanger Summary .......................................................................................... 18
Construction Cost Estimate............................................................................................. 19
Appendix B - Financial Statements ........................................................................................ 20
Balance Sheet or Financial Statement .............................................................................. 21
Current Year Profit and Loss Statement ........................................................................... 22
Pro Forma Profit and Loss Statement ............................................................................... 23
Appendix C Dun and Bradstreet Number............................................................................. 24
Appendix D Lender Credit Commitment Letter ..................................................................... 26
Appendix E Federal Income Tax Returns ............................................................................. 28
2002 IRS Form 1040....................................................................................................... 29
2003 IRS Form 1040....................................................................................................... 31
2004 IRS Form 1040....................................................................................................... 33
Appendix F Self Evaluation Scoring Sheet ........................................................................... 35
Appendix G USDA and Other Federal Application Forms...................................................... 41
Certification for Contracts, Grands and Loans ................................................................... 42
USDA Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, and Other Responsibility
Matters Primary Covered Transactions Form AD-1047 ............................................... 43
USDA Equal Opportunity Agreement Form FD 400-1 .................................................... 45
USDA Assurance Agreement Form RD 400-4............................................................... 47
Budget Information Construction Programs Form 424C .............................................. 48
Assurances Construction Programs Form 424D ......................................................... 50
Application for Federal Assistance Standard Form 424 (SF 424) .................................... 52
Disclosure of Lobbying Activities Standard Form LLL .................................................... 54
USDA Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, Ineligibility and Voluntary
Exclusion Lower Tier covered Transactions Form AD-1048......................................... 56
USDA Certification Regarding Drug-Free Workplace Requirements (Grants)
Alternative I for Grantees Other Than Individuals Form AD-1049................................. 58
USDA Request For Environmental Information Form RD 1940-20 .................................. 60
 Fizer Dairy Geothermal Heating

Project Summary

This project, entitled Fizer Dairy Geothermal Heating, seeks to decrease some of the Fizer
Dairys high-energy costs by using the geothermal resource found on the farm located in southern
Idaho near the town of Berger (population 134) about 6 miles southwest of Twin Falls, Idaho.
The project is for the purchase of a renewable energy system and geothermal components
necessary to supply hot water for our dairy operations.

Twin Falls, ID

Berger, ID

The geothermal resources in this area are well known and documented in a number of studies,
but they have not been widely used for industrial processes. Over 100 high yield irrigation, stock
and domestic wells, ranging in temperature from 20 - 84C (68 - 182F) and in depth from 200 to
over 3,000 feet, have been drilled in the area. Fresh vegetables are produced in greenhouses
near Berger. Warm water fish species are bred locally in cooling ponds. Most wat er is used for
irrigation, although there is some space heating of homes. This project involves drilling a supply
and an injection well and installing equipment to heat process water and buildings at the Fizer
Dairy.

We believe that we will experience significant financial savings by using the geothermal resource
in our dairy operations. Recognizing the potential cost savings involved with the use of
geothermal energy we plan to use the geothermal resource for:
1. Cleaning our facilities, and processing equipment.
2. Space heating and cooling all the buildings on our dairy operation.

1
 3. Installing pipes under the driveway to melt snow where milk haulers will come daily to
transport our milk to a producer.

The engineering study indicates that the annual heating energy required to heat the buildings
(does not include driveway heating) is 426 million BTUs which is 4,259.9 therms. At todays
natural gas costs of 1.255 $/therm this project would reduce the Fizer Dairy Farm natural gas bill
by approximately $5,346 a year. Given the rising cost of natural gas, these savings are expected
to increase in years to come. The local natural gas supplier, Intermountain Gas, has applied to
the Idaho Public Utilities Commission for permission to raise natural gas prices 28% effective
October 1, 2005.

This project will be designed and engineered to meet the intended purpose of providing heat to
the facility, and it will meet all applicable public safety regulations and laws.

Total project cost is estimated to be $81,889. The implementation of this project hinges on
receiving a grant in the amount of $20,472 (25% of the total project cost) from the USDAs
Renewable Energy/Energy Efficiency Improvements Program (Section 9006). The estimated
timeframe for project completion is approximately 5 months from the date Mr. Fizer signs the
grant agreement and the funds are obligated. A detailed project timeline which covers planning,
permitting, construction and startup is included with the technical section of this application. The
anticipated operational date for the geothermal system is April 2006.

Eligibility

Applicant Eligibility

Willard Fizer and his wife Edith function as the sole owners of Fizer Dairy Farm. The Fizers two
sons, Michael and Patrick Fizer, assist with daily operations and maintenance of the dairy. Fizer
Dairy Farm exists as a sole proprietorship. No parent, subsidiary or affiliate organizations
involved with Fizer Dairy affect this project. Fizer Dairy is a small dairy that milks 260 cows twice
a day. A milk distributor comes twice daily and picks up milk at our dairy farm and transfers it to a
dairy producer.
Fizer Dairy Farms exists as an eligible applicant for the USDA Rural Development Farm Bill
section 9006, Renewable Energy Systems and Energy Efficiency Improvements Program based
on the following:
Fizer Dairy Farm operates as an agricultural producer engaged in the production and
handling of dairy products
Mr. Fizer earns over 90% of his income from this dairy operation
Fizer Dairy exists as a sole proprietorship
The sole owner of Fizer Dairy, Mr. Willard Fizer, is a citizen of the United States, as are
his wife Edith and two sons Michael and Patrick
Mr. Fizer does not have any outstanding judgments obtained by the United States in
Federal Court, and is not delinquent in the payment of Federal income taxes or Federal
debt
Mr. Fizer demonstrates financial need. Financial analysis shows Mr. Fizer would not be
able to maintain his cash flow and income over the long term without this grant
assistance. A letter from Fizers lending institution has been included in this application.
The project will not be attempted without grant assistance.
Mr. Fizer has never applied for nor received a grant or loan from USDA or any other
Federal Agency

Project Eligibility

Fizer Dairy is an eligible project based on the following reasons:

2
 The Fizer Dairy project will increase the efficiency of our dairy operations by utilizing the
renewable geothermal energy source abundantly available on our property
The project is for the purchase of a renewable energy system, geothermal components
necessary to supply hot water for our dairy operations.
The components proposed for this project are all commercially available, with proven
operating histories, established designs and installation procedures.
This project is located in a rural area near Berger Idaho. Berger is located in Twin Falls
county (pop. 65,000) approximately 8 miles SW of the town of Twin Falls. Berger is not
considered an urbanized area adjacent to any city or town with a population over 50,000.
Willard Fizer, owner and operator of the farm, has no plans to sell the farm in the
foreseeable future and fully expects to own and control the proposed project for the
period required to pay off the debt incurred by the system. Once trained by the system
installers on the operations and maintenance of the system, Mr. Fizer will be responsible
for the operations and maintenance of the system.
The annual revenue from Mr. Fizers farming and dairy operation and the fuel savings
from the project are sufficient to provide for the operation, management, and debt service
for the life of the project
This project will allevi ate approximately 85% of Mr. Fizers annual natural gas utility bill.
He will perform the routine maintenance himself and, therefore, will not have to pay for
this service.

Operation Description

The Fizer Dairy operations are located on approximately 30 acres of the 360 total acres owned
and operated by Willard and Edith Fizer. Willard and Edith Fizer have operated the dairy for 19
years. However, the dairy has actually been in operation for over 30 years. Prior to Mr. Willard
Fizers management, the dairy was owned and operated by his father, Robert Fizer.

The operation
currently has
approximately 400
cows, 2 enclosed
buildings for
milking and
processing the
milk, 3 silos for
storing feed and
multiple covered
stalls and feeding
areas for the
livestock. Some
but not all of the
feed used in the
dairy operation is
grown at the Fizer
farm which has
approximately 320
acres of farmable
land irrigated with a
center pivot
irrigation system.
Standard farm
Aerial view of the Fizer Dairy. Photo from Google Earth equipment for
planting,
harvesting, storing and moving hay and grain crops are part of this farming operation. The
2
proposed heating system will heat approximately 1800 ft of enclosed space used for milking and

3
 2
milk processing, after which the geothermal flui d will then be used to warm 1600 ft of driveway
and loading area before being reinjected into the aquifer.

This is a family run dairy with occasional part time and seasonal labor help. The future plans are
to turn the operation over to Willard Fizers son Michael, when Willard Fizer retires. This dairy
operation will be controlled by the Fizer family for the life of the project.

Financial Information

Fizer Dairy is a small family operated dairy that is not a subsidiary of any parent company or
corporation, and does not have any subsidiary or affiliates at other locations. In 2005, the last full
accounting year, the dairy had total income of $856,500 and total expenses of $795,925 with a
net income of $60,575. The gross market value for agricultural products sold is $756,000 for milk
products, $19,000 for calves, and $63,000 for cattle sold. Mr. Fizer and his wife Edith have no
nonfarm income. A Balance Sheet, Current Year Profit and Loss Statement, and Pro Forma
Profit and Loss Statement are included in Appendix B of this application. Copies of the Fizers
Federal Income Tax Returns for 2002, 2003 and 2004 are included in Appendix E of this
application.
The assumptions used for the financial projections for 2006, 2007 and 2008 are:
The dairy operation will remain the same size with no increase in livestock or milk
production
Labor rates will increase 1% per year
Payroll Taxes will increase 1.5% in year 1, 1.5% in year 2 and 1.5% in year 3
Operating Interest dollars will increase by 18.2% in year 1 and remain steady at $22K for
the next 3 years
Feed costs will decrease from $327K to $320K and remain steady for the next 3 years
Property taxes will not change in the next 3 years
Natural Gas costs will decrease from approximately $5,300 to zero
Other utility cost will remain constant at about $25K
Cost details for these and other expenses are available in the Pro Forma Profit and Loss
Statement in Appendix B,

Matching Funds

Funding for this geothermal project will come from Fizer Dairy operating Funds, a loan from Idaho
Farm Credit Services, and a grant from the USDA for a purchase and installation of a Renewable
Energy System. The details of the funding are presented below.

Dollar
Source Of Funding Status Contact Information
Amount
Available from Willard Fizer P.O. Box 6748, Berger ID (208)-526-
Fizer Dairy Operating Funds 3,500
Savings Account 1000
Mr. Patrick Lanley, Sr Business Analyst, Idaho Farm
Idaho Farm Credit Services 57,917 Loan Approved Credit Services, P.O. Box 1625, Idaho Falls, ID
83415, (208) 526-1000
Mr. John Farmer, Business Program Specialists,
Pending Award of
USDA 9006 Grant 20,472 USDA Rural Development, 725 Jensen Grove Drive,
Grant
Blackfoot, ID 83221 (208)-785-5840

Total Project Cost 81,889

4
Project Cost

The proposed modification and upgrade to the Fizer Dairy, to take advantage of the geothermal
resource on the property is estimated to cost $81,889. This grant proposal is requesting the
maximum 25% of that total, or $20,472. A summary of the cost is presented below, with
additional detail provided in the project timeline and the engineering design in Appendix A.

Fizer Dairy Geothermal Heating Project - Estimated Cost

Planning and Permitting

Quantity Units Unit Cost Total
Engineering Consultant -
48 hours 120 $5,760
Detailed Design
Drilling Surety bond 1 lump 5000 $5,000
Drilling Permit - Production
1 llump 200 $200
Well
Drilling Permit - Injection Well 1 lump 200 $200
Injection Well Permit 1 lump 300 $300
Engineering Consultant -
32 hours 120 $3,840
Construction & Installation
Subtotal $15,300
* Construction
Injection and Production Well $29,750
Distribution Piping $10,000
Space Heating Load 1 - Milk
$2,700
Barn
Space Heating Load 2 - Bulk
$2,618
Tank Room
Hot Water Load 1 - Cow
$1,923
Washing
Hot Water Load 2 - Floors,
$1,923
Utters
Snow Melting $17,675
Subtotal $66,589

Total Project Cost $81,889

* Details on Construction Cost Estimate Sheet

5
The payback costs for this project have been calculated using three methods. The simple
payback formula is:

TotalEligi ble Pr ojectCost

Simple Payback Period (in years) =
AnnualSavingsorIncome

The total eligible project cost is estimated at $81,889. The cost of natural gas saved in 2006 $s
is $5,346.

$81,889
Payback period = Simple Payback = 15 years
$5,346 / yr

However, its reasonable to assume that the price of natural gas would increase during the life of
this system. Two alternative calculations were made, assuming the price of natural gas
increased 2.5% a year and 5.0% a year. Using a 2.5% increase in natural gas prices, the
th
payback would be in the 13 year. Using a 5% increase in natural gas prices each year, the
th
payback would be in the 11 year.

6
 Technical Report Fizer Dairy

Introduction

Idaho has abundant geothermal resources, especially the central and southern parts of the state
where the majority of the geothermal wells and springs are found. These resources have been
developed over the last 100+ years for recreation, district heating, domestic heating, aquaculture,
and greenhouse operations. Fizer Dairy is located near Berger, Idaho, in this area of abundant
geothermal resources.

Geothermal Direct Use Requirements

I. Qualifications of Project Team

This project was conceptually planned prior to preparing this USDA Farm Bill Section 9006
application. Willard Fizer is somewhat familiar with geothermal direct use applications. Mr. Fizer
contacted a licensed Professional Engineer (PE) with significant experience in direct use
geothermal applications, design and construction for preliminary guidance on the project. The
overall project will consist of designing, bidding, and building a geothermal heating system for
parts of the Fizer Dairy.

Project Management - Mr. Willard Fizer will serve as the project manager. Prior to taking over
the family dairy farm business he received his BS in Chemistry from Utah State University, in
Logan, Utah. Willard Fizer has 25 years of agriculture experience, including 20 years of owning,
operating and managing the Fizer Dairy in Berger, Idaho. Willard will be directly responsible for
the dairy operations after the project changes have been implemented.

Design, Engineering & Installation Oversight Mr. Andrew Chase, the project engineer works
for GeoHeat Applications LLC., and holds Bachelors and Masters Degrees in Geological
Engineering and a Masters Degree in Mechanical Engineering. He is a licensed Professional
Engineer in Idaho, Washington and Oregon with 10 years of experience in design and installation
of geothermal systems. Mr. Chase can be contacted at (541) 885-1750

Systems Operation - Mr. Fizer will be directly responsible for servicing, operating and
maintaining the geothermal heating system once installed. He will receive training from the
equipment manufactures and the project engineer. He will be assisted by his two sons Michael,
and Patrick who once trained by the system installer on the operations and maintenance of the
systems, will be primarily responsible for the operations and maintenance. The key components
and moving parts in the system are primarily pumps and motors, with which Mr. Fizer, as a dairy
owner and operator, and his sons have extensive installation, maintenance and repair
experience.

Equipment Manufacturers - The equipment being installed is comprised of off-the-shelf

components that can be supplied by a number of manufacturers. None of the components for the
proposed system are one-of-a-kind or special order. None of the components require special
design and will not be custom manufactured. Bids will be requested from a number of suppliers
in order to get the best pricing for all the components.

To the best of our knowledge there currently are no dairies in south central Idaho that use
geothermal resources to heat their facilities.

7
II. Agreements and Permits

The Idaho Department of Water Resources (IDWR) and the Department of Environmental Quality
(DEQ) are the lead agencies for administering and enforcing the rules and regulations governing
water use and quality in Idaho. IDWR is responsible for issuing water rights, well construction
permits and underground fluid injection wells.

Idaho, policies governing geothermal resources are published in the Geothermal Resources Act
(Idaho Code Title 42-40). The State of Idaho has a separate definition for low temperature
geothermal resources. Low temperature geothermal resources are ground water having a
temperature of greater than 85 F (29 C) and less than 212 F (100 C) in the bottom of a
well. Low-level geothermal resources are administered by the Department of Water
Resources. The Fizer Dairy Farm water is 160F and therefore is considered a low temperature
geothermal resource. Low temperature geothermal water use, including space heating, and
irrigation, is regulated with the rules governing groundwater appropriation and well drilling
regulations. Appropriate forms and notifications for drilling are available on the internet. It is
anticipated that it will take approximately 3 weeks to get the appropriate permits from the state of
Idaho for this project.

Rules and regulations governing well construction are in IDAPA 37 Title 3 Chapter 9. Rule 30-
Construction of Low Temperature Geothermal Resource Wells is presented in Idaho
Administrative Code 37 Title 3 Chapter 4- Drilling for Geothermal Resources Rules. The
regulatory process for developing a low temperature, direct use geothermal project in Idaho
consists of the following steps:

Gain access to lands either through lease or direct ownership.

Contact local and/or county agencies to ensure compliance with local land use laws
including building permits and zoning restrictions.
Secure water right. (IDWR)
Obtain well construction permit/develop production well. (IDWR)
Determine fluid disposal plan and obtain permits for either underground injection or
surface disposal. (DEQ)

The Fizer Dairy Farm does not fall within an IDWR area of drilling concern and no additional well
construction requirements are necessary. Fizer Dairy farms own all the water rights within a 3-
mile radius of the proposed project and currently have a valid water rights permit. The Fizer Dairy
Farm is not within a designated ground water management areas (GWMAs) or critical ground
water areas (CGWAs). We have contacted county planning and health departments to check for
any additional regulations or ordinances covering well placement and construction and there are
none in this location.

A drilling prospectus will be submitted to DWR prior to construction. A surety bond or cash bond
as required by Idaho code section 42-233 with DWR. The amount of the bond ranges from
$5000, up to $20,000, as determined by the depth and temperature of the well. There will be a
drilling permit fee of $200. The well will be drilled by a licensed and bonded well contractor. In
addition, this low temperature geothermal well has specific casing requirements including the
sealing of the casing to prevent cooling of the resource due to intermingling with cold-water
aquifers.

The preferred method of disposing of geothermal fluids is to return them to the ground by way of
injection wells. Fizer Dairy Farms plans to drill an injection well to dispose of the water after it has
passed through their heating systems. IDWR administers the Idaho Waste Disposal and Injection
Well program. Geothermal heat wells and closed loop heat pump return wells are both classified
in Idaho as Class V injection wells. Injection wells that are more than 18 feet deep must apply for
a permit from DWR prior to construction. This applies to closed-loop heat exchange wells, if they
are deeper than 18 feet (5.5 m). Fizer Dairy Farms will apply for the $100 permit. There will be a

8
30-day review period in addition to the normal processing time for this injection will permit. The
proposed Fizer Dairy Farms project is expected to require less than 50 gpm of fluid, and may be
exempt from the permit provisions. This will be determined with consultation with IDWR
personnel.

We have contacted the county and inquired about zoning and code requirements and there are
none that affect this project.

There are no licenses required to own and operate the type of equipment we are proposing to
install.

State health officials have been contacted and they indicated that as long as the temperatures
meet the state health code requirements for cleaning and operation, there will be not be any
changes in our existing permits and periodic inspections.

Most of the components of the proposed system are piping and valves which come with standard
manufacturer warranties. Depending on which manufacture we choose, the warranties for the
heat exchangers and controllers will vary but will be what is commonly accepted within the
industry.

The entire project will be on Fizer Dairy property, and there will be no environmental impacts.
The water used in this system is essentially in a closed loop and will be extracted from on well
and injected to another well. The process used for washing and cleaning will not change, other
than the source of the heat for the water, and thus no environmental impacts.

III. Resource Assessment

The current well producing water for the Fizer Dairy Farm was drilled to a total depth of 280 ft in
1982. Water temperature has been recorded on yearly basis since the well was drilled, and it
ranges between 162F and 165F. The water level in the well has been measured twice a year
since drilling in 1982 and it fluctuates between 208 and 220 ft below ground surface. The well
was originally pump tested at a flowing rate of 320 gpm. The daily requirements of the farm
range from 20 to 35 gpm. The proposed geothermal heating system is estimated to require less
than 50gpm. The water from the well has been tested at a state approved water quality
laboratory on a number of occasions. The most recent tests had the following results:

Temperat ure 73C (163F)

pH 7.6
Sodium (Na) 22 mg/L
Potassium (K) 5.1 mg/L
Calcium (Ca) 43 mg/L
Silica (SiO2) 16 mg/L

Information available on the geothermal reservoir in this area indicates that a distance of 300 ft
between the production and injection wells is sufficient to avoid thermal breakthrough and cooli ng
of the geothermal fluids pumped from the supply well. The injection will be drilled to a depth of
325 feet so the cooler injected water will not result in thermal breakthrough and cooling of the
supply well.

IV. Design and Engineering

A preliminary design of this project was prepared by John Doe with the assistance of Mr. Fizer.
The preliminary design and calculations are presented in Appendix A. Mr. Doe a mechanical
engineer with GeoHeat Applications LLC. , is a licensed Professional Engineer (PE) with 10 years

9
of experience in research and development, design and construction of geothermal direct use
projects. GeoHeat Applications LLC., has worked on hundreds of projects both in the U.S. and
internationally over the last 20 years. They work exclusively on geothermal direct use
applications.

This project consists of: 1) drilling a 250 supply well, 2) installing piping from the supply well to
the facilities to be heated, 3) retrofitting the existing boiler and installing heat exchange
2
equipment, 4) installing a 1,600 ft concrete slab with radiant heat tubing in a parking area, 5)
drilling and completing a 325 injection well, 6) installing piping from the new heating equipment to
the injection well.

Mr. Fizer became interested in using the geothermal resource available on his property after
attending a geothermal direct use workshop in Boise, Idaho sponsored by the Department of
Energy GeoPowering The West program. The recent increase in fuel cost for operating the dairy
led to an in-depth analysis of how the dairy could reduce costs. The geothermal option was
selected because he already owns the resource, and it would require minimal disruption of his
operations to install a geothermal system. This project will require drilling one production and one
disposal well, and trenching to install approximately 200 ft of 3-inch pipe. Once the piping is
installed there will be no land use impacts. The disposal well will have a footprint of
2
approximately 50 ft when finished. There is ample room and a number of locations where the
injection will can be placed. There will be no impacts to air quality, water quality, and wildlife
habitat. There will be no noise pollution, soil degradation or odor associated with this project.

Mr. Fizer plans to leave the current natural gas heating systems in place to provide backup
heating capability should it ever be necessary.

Fizer Dairy Farms and the adjacent 360 acres has been owned and operated by Willard and
Edith Fizer for 19 years. The dairy has actually been in operation for over 30 years. Prior to Mr.
Willard Fizers management, the dairy was owned and operated by his father, Robert Fizer. This
is a family run dairy, and the future plans are to turn the operation over to Willard Fizers son
Michael, when Willard Fizer retires. This dairy operation will be controlled by the Fizer family for
the life of the project.

V. Project Development Schedule

Significant tasks for this project include preparation of detailed specifications, obtaining required
permits, obtaining material and construction bids, ordering materials, construction and startup. A
detailed timeline for the project is presented in the timeline diagram. The entire project is
expected to take a little over 5 months (October 31 to March 13) from inception to completion.
The project will be completed within 1 year of the date of approval from USDA.

10
11
VI. Financial Feasibility

Project management - No outside project management cost will be incurred on this project. The
small size of this project allows Mr. Fizer, the dairy owner to function as the project manager. He
has experience in designing and managing construction of upgrades to the dairy facilities over the
past 20 years.

Resource Assessment - A detailed resource assessment is not required for this project. The
geothermal resource has been adequately defined and tested with the existing well. Pump tests,
chemical analysis of the water and annual temperature measurements over the life of the existing
well confirm that an adequate resource exists.

Project Design - A preliminary design (Appendix A) has been completed by a licensed

Professional Engineer with experience in geothermal direct use applications. Approximately 50
hours of additional engineering consultations at approximately $120.00/hr ($6,000 total) will be
required to complete the design, installation and startup.

Project Permitting -Project permitting will be performed by Mr. Fizer. His time will not be
charged to the project. The cost of permits including a drilling permit, injection well permit and
bond for the drilling operations are expected to cost less than $600 for the two wells. The drilling
bond will be approximately $500. There will also be local construction permits required for the
parking pad and upgrades to the facilities. These local construction permits are anticipated to be
less than $250.

Site preparation The proposed location for the two wells area clear of underground and
overhead obstructions, and are not encumbered by any easements or legal constraints. No
special siting requirements are applicable. All site preparation work will be done by employees of
Fizer Dairy. The dairy has the necessary equipment and tools for trenching operations and earth
moving that would be associated with providing a drilling pad, pipe trenching and leveling and
2
compacting requirements for the 1,600 ft pad. The dairy also has the necessary equipment and
skills for any modifications to existing facilities or equipment that are required prior to installation
of the new equipment.

Installation Installation cost are included in the cost estimate in Appendix A.

Financing Initial discussions have been held with Mr. Fizers financial institution. They have
agreed to provide financing based on the information provided in this application assuming the
USDA grant covers 25% of the project cost.

Startup There will be no special startup costs associated with this project, other than the
engineer consultation fee described in the Project Design section above.

Maintenance Costs Maintenance cost are predicted to be similar to the maintenance cost with
the current operation. The new system will add additional circulation pumps and control systems,
but these components have low failure rates and minimal maintenance costs associated with
them.

Annual Revenue and Expenses - This project is not designed to provide direct revenue to Fizer
Dairy by selling power. Energy cost savings, by using geothermal resources instead of natural
gas is the ultimate goal. The current system for heating the Fizer Dairy facilities relied on boilers
fired with natural gas. The current price of natural gas is from Intermountain Gas is
approximately $1.2555/therm. The estimated annual heating required for Fizer Dairy is
547MMBtu or 5,470 therms. This includes the new heated pad for delivery and loading of milk
products. With a boiler operating at 80% efficiency, approximately 6,838 therms of natural gas
would be required to meet the annual heating demand, which, at todays Intermountain Gas

12
Company rates, would cost about $6,864. Fizer Dairy has other gas needs that would not be
affected by this project.

Investment, Productivity, Tax, Loan and Grant Incentives Mr. Fizer is exploring the
possibility of obtaining a loan through the State of Idaho. The state has a low interest loan
program, administered by the Energy Division of the Idaho Department of Water Resources,
makes funds available at a 4% interest rate for energy efficiency projects including geothermal
energy projects. Loans are available for retrofit only, with the exception of some renewable
resources. In commercial, industrial, agricultural, and public sectors there is a minimum loan
amount of $1,000 and a maximum cap of $100,000. Loans are repaid in five years or less. For
existing homes or businesses, the savings from reduced usage of conventional fuel must be
sufficient to pay for the projects installation cost (e.g. simple payback of 15 years or less). While
the programs financing requires repayment within five years, this further stipulation for existing
homes and businesses states that the projects cumulative energy savings over a fifteen year
period must be great enough to offset the cost of the project.

VII. Equipment Procurement

Equipment Availability The materials required for this project are standard off the shelf items.
With the exception of the heat exchangers and pressure tank, most are available in home and
ranch supply stores, or local plumbing supply business. The heat exchangers are available from
multiple suppliers including Alfa-Laval, APV, Armstrong, SWEP, and Tranter. Pressure tanks are
also available from multiple suppliers such as Flexcon, Franklin Pump Company, and ITT
Industries. Heat exchangers and a pressure tank, and associated controls can be delivered to
the site within 20 days of ordering them. Procurement of the components of this system will be
done in an open and free competitive basis.

VIII. Equipment Installation

System Installation The plan for construction and installation is shown in the project timeline.
This timeline estimates the entire construction portion of the project to be 11 days from initial well
drilling, to system startup and shakedown.

Equipment installation will be done in accordance with all applicable safety and work rules.

It is anticipated that there will be no disruption in the twice-daily milking operations at the dairy,
both during construction, and during startup of the system.

System Startup and Shakedown - System start-up will be carried out by a qualified well pump
and controls technician in conjunction with a qualified hydronic heating and plumbing technician.
System start-up will consist of verifying operation of thermostats and controls as designed, and
verifying system pressures and flow rates as designed.

IX. Operations and Maintenance

Operation Requirements The system operation will be based on thermostatic controls and
pressure sensed in the pressure tank. When a thermostat calls for heating, appropriate valves
will open at the heat exchanger, allowing flow of geothermal water through the heating system.
When the pressure correspondingly drops in the pressure tank, the well pump will be energized.
The pump speed will be controlled by pressure in the tank.

Maintenance Requirements - The circulating pumps will require a quarterly visual inspection to
see that seals and connections are not leaking. Otherwise the pumps and motors have no

13
routine maintenance requirements. The heat exchangers will require routine inspection and may
require annual cleaning or de-scaling.

Warranties - The electric motors used in the system are all 1 hp or smaller, and have standard 1
year warranties from the manufactures. Downhole pumps for the production well typically come
with 1 to 2 year warranties from the manufacturer. The heat exchangers typically have a 1-year
warranty.

Expected Equipment Design Life The water used in this well has low solids and corrosives
content, and therefore equipment life should not be affected by the water chemistry. Heat
exchangers used in similar applications have functioned with out failure for 15 to 20 years, and
thus this is the expected life of the heat exchangers on this project. Submersible pumps in similar
well conditions have life expectancies of 12 -15 years. Circulation pumps used in similar
applications have performed for more than 15 years with occasional maintenance on the seals.
The piping used in the system should be good for 50 years or more. The pressure tank has a life
expectancy of 15 years.

Risk Management / Equipment Failures The proposed system form an engineering standpoint
in not a complex system. Components most susceptible to failure are controllers and pumps,
which are standard off the shelf items that can be delivered and installed in 24 hrs by Mr. Fizer.

Technology Transfer This will be the first dairy in Southern Idaho to be heated by geothermal
fluids. We intended to provide access for the College of Southern Idaho, in nearby Twin Falls, ID
to visit our facilities and collect data to support their programs in the Water Resource
Management and Farm Management and Air Conditioning / Refrigeration / Heating Technology.
We also plan to share information on the systems performance with local and state dairy
operators through the local USDA CREES office at 246 Third Avenue East in Twin Falls, Idaho.

X. Decommissioning

There are no plans to decommission this system. If anything it might be expanded at a

future date if the dairy operations were to grow substantially.

14
 Appendix A Engineering Design

Process Diagram
Heating Loads Summary
Heat Exchanger Summary
Construction Cost Estimate

15
Appendix A: Process Diagram

16
17
18
19
 Appendix B Financial Statements

Balance Sheet or Financial Statement

Current Year Profit and Loss Statement or Income Statement or Earnings
Statement
Pro Forma Profit and Loss Statement

20
 Fizer Dairy
Balance Sheet or Financial Statement

As of December 31, 2005

ASSETS
Current Assets
Cash 23,000
Account Receivables (milk) 36,000
Feed on Hand 125,000
Calves for Sale 3,000
Total Current Assets 187,000

Fixed Assets
60 Heifers, 6 to 16 months 50,000
240 head Cows 240,000
Farm Equipment 240,000
Irrigation Equipment 75,000
Trucks 85,000
360 Acres Land 540,000
Dairy Buildings and Equipment 575,000
Retirement Accounts 74,000
Depreciation -586,000
Total Fixed Assets 1,293,000

Total Assets 1,480,000

LIABILITIES
Current Debts
Account Payables 36,000
Operating Line of Credit, Farm Credit 90,000
Swather Annual Payment, Wells Fargo 15,000
Center Pivot Loan Payment, Valmont Financial 11,000
Cattle loan current payment, FCS 13,000
Total Current Debts 165,000

Long Term Debt

Swather loan Wells Fargo Bank 30,000
Center Pivot loan Valmont Financial 29,000
Cattle Loan Farm Credit 75,000
Land/Dairy Buildings Farm Credit 778,000
Total Long Term Debt 912,000

Total Debt 1,077,000

EQUITY 403,000

21
 Fizer Dairy
Current Year Profit and Loss Statement, or Income Statement,
or Earnings Statement

January 1 through December 31, 2005

INCOME
Milk Sold 756,000
Calves Sold 19,000
Cattle Sold 63,000
Government Payments 18,500

Total Income 856,500

EXPENSES
Labor 74,000
Payroll Taxes 6,500
Repairs 6,200
Interest (Operating 18,000
Interest (Other) 60,000
Rent/Lease 32,000
Feed 327,000
Seed 13,000
Fertilizer 68,000
Chemicals 17,000
Custom Hire 8,000
Supplies 11,000
Breeding/Veterinarian 17,000
Fuel, Gas, Oil 33,000
Property Taxes 12,300
Insurance 4,700
Natural Gas 5,100
Utilities 24,125
Depreciation 59,000

Total Expenses 795,925

NET INCOME 60,575

22
 Fizer Dairy

PRO FORMA PROFIT AND LOSS STATEMENT

also known as an income statement or earnings statement

HISTORICAL or ACTUAL PROJECTED or PRO FORMA

INCOME 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Milk Sold 728,000 708,000 756,000 730,000 730,000 730,000
Calves Sold 17,900 15,300 19,000 18,000 18,000 18,000
Cattle Sold 61,300 53,000 63,000 58,000 58,000 58,000
Government Payments 20,460 21,300 18,500 18,000 18,000 18,000

Total Income 827,660 797,600 856,500 824,000 824,000 824,000

EXPENSES
Labor 66,000 68,000 74,000 75,000 76,000 77,000
Payroll Taxes 5,900 6,100 6,500 6,600 6,700 6,800
Repairs 13,400 16,800 6,200 10,000 10,000 10,000
Interest (Operating 14,000 15,400 18,000 22,000 22,000 22,000
Interest (Other) 57,000 53,000 60,000 58,000 56,000 54,000
Rent/Lease 32,000 32,000 32,000 32,000 32,000 32,000
Feed 308,000 311,000 327,000 320,000 320,000 320,000
Seed 14,000 14,500 13,000 13,500 13,500 13,500
Fertilizer 52,000 54,500 68,000 74,000 74,000 74,000
Chemicals 14,000 15,200 17,000 17,000 17,000 17,000
Custom Hire 15,000 17,000 8,000 11,000 11,000 11,000
Supplies 13,000 11,300 11,000 12,000 12,000 12,000
Breeding/Veterinarian 19,000 18,600 17,000 18,000 18,000 18,000
Fuel, Gas, Oil 23,000 25,300 33,000 33,000 33,000 33,000
Property Taxes 11,800 12,100 12,300 12,300 12,300 12,300
Insurance 4,600 4,600 4,700 4,700 4,700 4,700
Natural Gas 5,100 4,200 5,100 0 0 0
Utilities 24,125 25,300 24,125 25,000 25,000 25,000
Depreciation 72,000 68,000 59,000 56,000 53,000 49,000

Total Expenses 763,925 772,900 795,925 800,100 796,200 791,300

HISTORICAL or ACTUAL PROJECTED or PRO FORMA

NET INCOME 63,735 24,700 60,575 23,900 27,800 32,700

23
Appendix C Dun and Bradstreet Number

24
 Dun and Bradstreet DUNS Number

A Dun and Bradstreet Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number is required on a complete
USDA Grant Proposal. Here is some information on what the DUNS number is.

What is the D-U-N-S Number?

The D&B D-U-N-S Number is a unique nine-digit identification sequence, which provides unique
identifiers of single business entities, while linking corporate family structures together. D&B links
the D&B D-U-N-S Numbers of parents, subsidiaries, headquarters and branches on more than 70
million corporate family members around the world. Used by the world's most influential
standards-setting organizations, it is recognized, recommended and/or required by more than 50
global, industry and trade associations, including the United Nations, the U.S. Federal
Government, the Australian Government and the European Commission. In today's global
economy, the D&B D-U-N-S Number has become the standard for keeping track of the world's
businesses.

Why should you have a D-U-N-S Number?

It enhances the credibility of your business in the marketplace
It enables potential customers, suppliers and lenders to easily identify and learn about
your company
The U.S. government and many major corporations require their suppliers and
contractors to have a D-U-N-S Number

Please note that getting a D-U-N-S Number alone will not establish a D&B credit file for your
company. If you are requesting a D-U-N-S Number because you need to show others that your
business is creditworthy, you will probably need to establish a credit file.

Obtaining and DUNS number.

From the website: http://www.grants.gov/RequestaDUNS

In order to register with the Central Contractor Registry, a requirement for registering with
Grants.gov, your organization will need a Data Universal Number System (DUNS) Number. A
DUNS number is a unique nine-character identification number provided by the commercial
company Dun & Bradstreet (D&B).

What is the process? If your organization is located in the United States, you can request and
register for a DUNS number by calling 1-866-705-5711. If your organization is located outside of
the United States, you can request and register for a DUNS number online via web registration.

If your organization does not have a DUNS number, you should ask the chief financial officer,
grant administrator, or authorizing official of your organization to register for a DUNS number. It
is possible to request a DUNS number online via web registration.

25
Appendix D Lender Credit Commitment Letter

26
 Idaho Farm Credit
Services

February 25, 2005

To Whom It May Concern:

Idaho Farm Credit Services agrees to provide financing in an am ount no greater than $60,000 for
the purchase of materials and labor for the conversion to geothermal energy sources for Willard
D. Fizer, owner of Fizer Dairy, of Berger, Idaho. This letter is a commitment by Idaho Farm Credit
Services to finance 75% the project up to $61,400.

Sincerely,

Patrick Lanley
Sr. Business Analyst
Idaho Farm Credit Services

27
 Appendix E Federal Income Tax Returns

2002 Form 1040 U.S. Individual Income Tax Return for Willard D. and Edith A. Fizer
2003 Form 1040 U.S. Individual Income Tax Return for Willard D. and Edith A. Fizer
2004 Form 1040 U.S. Individual Income Tax Return for Willard D. and Edith A. Fizer

28
2002 Form 1040

29
30
2003 Form 1040

31
32
2004 Form 1040

33
34
 Appendix F Self Evaluation Scoring Sheet

USDA will score each proposal with a set scoring criteria. That criteria have been used in the
following attachment to self score this proposal. USDA requires the applicant to self score their
proposal and provide that assessment as part of the proposal. The USDA guidance on the self
scoring process includes this information:

Self-Evaluation Score
Self-score the project using the evaluation criteria in RD Instruction 4280-B, Section 4280.112(e)

To justify the score, submit the total score along with appropriate calculations and attached
documentation, or specific cross-references to information elsewhere in the application.

NOTE: A spreadsheet application was used to self score this template application. A brief example
of the cross-references or documentation is presented after the self score sheets, but it is not
complete for the entire scoring process for this template. Complete cross-reference documentation
would be expected in a regular application.

35
 Scoring Summary
Maximum
Awarded
Category Possible
Points
Points
15 Energy Replacement Total Points (15 point maximum) 15
5 Energy Savings Total Points (20 point maximum - 15 + 5 point bonus) 15
5 Energy Savings Professional Energy Audit Bonus (5 point maximum) 5
0 Energy Generation Total Points (10 point maximum) 10
10 Environmental Benefits Total Points (10 point maximum) 10
10 Commercial Availability Total Points (10 points maximum) 10
35 Technical Merit Total Points ( 35 point maximum) 35
15 Readiness Total Points ( 15 point maximum) 15
10 Small Ag Producer / Very Small Business Total Points ( 10 point maximum) 10
5 Simplified Application/Low Cost Project Total Points ( 5 point maximum) 5
5 Previous Grantees and Borrowers Total Points ( 5 point maximum) 5
4 Return on Investment Total Points ( 10 point maximum) 10
82% 119 Total Score (out of 145 possible) 145

1 Quantity of energy replaced, produced or saved

(i) Energy Replacement

If the proposed renewable energy system is intended primarily for self-use by the agricultural
producer or rural small business and will provide energy replacement of:
(A) greater than zero, but equal to or less than 25 percent, 5 points will be awarded;
(B) greater than 25 percent, but equal to or less than 50 percent, 10 points will be awarded;
(C) or greater than 50 percent, 15 points will be awarded

426,000,000 = Estimated quantity of renewable energy (BTU's) to be generated over

a 12 month period.
426,000,000 = Estimated quantity of energy (BTU's) consumed over the same 12 month
period during the previous year.
1 = Generation /Consumption

15 Energy Replacement Total Points (15 point maximum)

(ii) Energy Savings

If the estimated energy expected to be saved by the installation of the energy efficiency
improvements will be from:
(A) 20 percent up to, but not including 30 percent, 5 points will be awarded;
(B) 30 percent up to, but not including 35 percent, 10 points will be awarded; or,
(C) 35 percent or greater, 15 points will be awarded

Energy savings will be determined by the projections in an energy assessment or audit.

Projects with total eligible project costs of $50,000 or less that opt to obtain a
professional energy audit will be awarded an additional 5 points.

5 Energy Savings Total Points (20 point maximum - 15 + 5 point bonus)

5 Energy Savings Professional Energy Audit Bonus (5 point maximum)

(iii) Energy Generation

If the proposed renewable energy system is intended primarily for production of energy for sale,
10 points will be awarded.

0 Energy Generation Total Points (10 point maximum)

36
2 Environmental Benefits
If the purpose of the proposed system contributes to the environmental goals and objectives of other
Federal, State, or local programs, 10 points will be awarded.
Points will only be awarded for this paragraph if the applicant is able to provide documentation from an
appropriate authority supporting this claim.

10 Environmental Benefits Total Points (10 point maximum)

3 Commercial Availability
(A) If the proposed system or improvement is currently commercially available and replicable,
5 points will be awarded.
(B) If the proposed system or improvement is commercially available and replicable and is also provided
with a 5-year or longer warranty providing the purchaser protection against system degradation or
breakdown or component breakdown, 10 points will be awarded.

10 Commercial Availability Total Points (10 points maximum)

4 Technical Merit Score

Each subparagraph has its own maximum possible score and will be scored according to the
following criteria:
a If the description in the subparagraph has no significant weaknesses and exceeds the
requirements of the subparagraph, 100 percent of the total possible score for the
subparagraph will be awarded.
b If the description has one or more significant strengths and meets the requirements of the
subparagraph, 80 percent of the total possible score will be awarded for the subparagraph.
c If the description meets the basic requirements of the subparagraph, but also has several
weaknesses, 60 percent of the points will be awarded.
d If the description is lacking in one or more critical aspects, key issues have not been addressed,
but the description demonstrates some merit or strengths, 40 percent of the total possible score
will be awarded.
e If the description has serious deficiencies, internal inconsistencies, or is missing information,
20 percent of the total possible score will be awarded.
f If the description has no merit in this area, 0 percent of the total possible score will be awarded.
g The total possible points for Technical Merit is 35 points

10 (A) Qualifications of the Project Team (maximum score of 10 points)

The applicant has described the project team service providers, their professional credentials,
and relevant experience. The description supports that the project team service, equipment,
and installation providers have the necessary professional credentials, licenses, certifications,
or relevant experience to develop the proposed project.

5 (B) Agreements and Permits (maximum score of 5 points)

The applicant has described the necessary agreements and permits required for the project
and the schedule for securing those agreements and permits.

10 (C) Energy or Resource Assessment (maximum score of 10 points)

The applicant has described the quality and availability of a suitable renewable resource or an
assessment of expected energy savings for the proposed system.

30 (D) Design and Engineering (maximum score of 30 points)

The applicant has described the design, engineering, and testing needed for the proposed project.
The description supports that the system will be designed, engineered, and tested so as to meet
its intended purpose, ensure public safety, and comply with applicable laws, regulations,
agreements, permits, codes, and standards.

37
 5 (E) Project Development Schedule (maximum score of 5 points)
The applicant has described the development method, including the key project development
activities and the proposed schedule for each activity. The description identifies each significant
task, its beginning and end, and its relationship to the time needed to initiate and carry the project
through to successful completion. The description addresses grantee or borrower project
development cashflow requirements.

20 (F) Project Economic Assessment (maximum score of 20 points)

The applicant has described the financial performance of the proposed project, including the
calculation of simple payback. The description addresses project costs and revenues, such as
applicable investment and production incentives, and other information to allow the assessment
of the project's cost effectiveness.

5 (G) Equipment Procurement (maximum score of 5 points)

The applicant has described the availability of the equipment required by the system. The
description supports that the required equipment is available, and can be procured and delivered
within the proposed project development schedule.

5 (H) Equipment Installation (maximum score of 5 points)

The applicant has described the plan for site development and system installation.

5 (I) Operation and Maintenance (maximum score of 5 points)

The applicant has described the operations and maintenance requirements of the system
necessary for the system to operate as designed over the design life.

5 (J) Dismantling and Disposal of Project Components (maximum score of 5 points)

The applicant has described the requirements for dismantling and disposing of project components
at the end of their useful life and associated wastes.

Calculation of Technical Merit Score

To determine the actual points awarded a project for Technical Merit, the following
procedure will be used: The score awarded for paragraphs (A) through (J):
Will be added together and then divided by 100, the maximum possible score,
to achieve a percentage. This percentage will then be multiplied by the total possible
points of 35 to achieve the points awarded for the proposed project for Technical Merit.

100 Total of Technical Merit A-J

1 Total of Technical Merit A-J / 100

35 Technical Merit Total Points ( 35 point maximum)

5 Readiness
(A) If the applicant has written commitments from the source(s) confirming commitment of 50 percent
up to but not including 75 percent of the matching funds prior to the Agency receiving the complete
application, 5 points will be awarded.

(B) If the applicant has written commitments from the source(s) confirming commitment of 75 percent
up to but not including 100 percent of the matching funds prior to the Agency receiving the complete
application, 10 points will be awarded.

(C) If the applicant has written commitments from the source(s) of matching funds confirming
commitment of 100 percent of the matching funds prior to the Agency receiving the complete
application, 15 points will be awarded.

15 Readiness Total Points ( 15 point maximum)

38
 6 Small Agricultural Producer / Very Small Business
(A) If the applicant is an agricultural producer producing agricultural products with a gross market value
of less than $600,000 in the preceding year, 5 points will be awarded.

(B) If the applicant is an agricultural producer producing agricultural products with a gross market value
of less than $200,000 in the preceding year or is a very small business 10 points will be awarded.

10 Small Ag Producer / Very Small Business Total Points ( 10 point maximum)

7 Simplified Application/Low Cost Projects

If the applicant is eligible for and uses the simplified application process or the project has total
eligible project costs of $200,000 or less, 5 points will be awarded.

5 Simplified Application/Low Cost Project Total Points ( 5 point maximum)

8 Previous Grantees and Borrowers

If an applicant has not been awarded a grant or loan under this program within the 2 previous Federal fiscal
years, 5 points will be awarded.

5 Previous Grantees and Borrowers Total Points ( 5 point maximum)

9 Return on Investment
If the proposed project will return the cost of the investment in:
(A) less than 4 years, 10 points will be awarded;
(B) 4 years up to but not including 8 years, 4 points will be awarded;
(C) 8 years up to 11 years, 2 point will be awarded.

4 Return on Investment Total Points ( 10 point maximum)

Scoring Justification

1) Section 1 (ii) Quantity of energy replaced, produced or saved

The BTU quantities are found in Appendix A Heating Loads Summary. The 121 million BTUs
that will be used for Slab Warming/Snow Melting were not used in the calculations on the scoring
sheet because this is not a required to operate the dairy, but is a very efficient use of the spent
geothermal fluid.

2) Section 2 Environmental Benefits.

This project helps meet the US Environmental Protection Agency goal of listed below, by
switching from a natural gas heating system with its combustion emissions, to a clean geothermal
heating system with no air emissions.

EPA's Goals [from 2003-2008 EPA Strategic Plan: Direction for the Future]
http://www.epa.gov/history/org/origins/goals.htm

Goal 1: Clean Air and Global Climate Change

Protect and improve the air so it is healthy to breathe and risks to human health and the
environment are reduced. Reduce greenhouse gas intensity by enhancing partnerships with
businesses and other sectors.

3) Section 4a Team Qualifications

39
The team qualifications are presented in the Technical Report section I Qualifications of Project
Team found on page 9 of this proposal.

40
 Appendix G USDA and Other Federal Application Forms

This appendix contains the forms required by USDA to be a complete Section 9006 Grant
Application

Certification for Contracts, Grants and Loans RD Instructions 1940-Q

Exhibit A-1
USDA Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, and Other
Responsibility Matters Primary Covered Transactions Form AD-1047
USDA Equal Opportunity Agreement Form FD 400-1
USDA Assurance Agreement Form RD 400-4
Budget Information Construction Programs Form 424C
Assurances Construction Programs Form 424D
Application for Federal Assistance Standard Form 424 (SF 424)
Disclosure of Lobbying Activities Standard Form LLL
USDA Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, Ineligibility and
Voluntary Exclusion Lower Tier covered Transactions Form AD-1048
USDA Certification Regarding Drug -Free Workplace Requirements
(Grants) Alternative I for Grantees Other Than Individuals Form AD-
1049
USDA Request For Environmental Information Form RD 1940-20

41
 RD Instruction 1940-Q
Exhibit A-1

CERTIFICATION FOR CONTRACTS, GRANTS AND LOANS

The undersigned certifies, to the best of his or her knowledge and belief, that:

1. No Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid, by or on behalf of

the undersigned, to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or
employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or
an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with the awarding of any Federal
contract, the making of any Federal grant or Federal loan, and the extension,
continuation, renewal, amendment, or modification of any Federal contract, grant or loan.

2. If any funds other than Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid to
any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any
agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a
Member of Congress in connection with this Federal contract, grant or loan, the
undersigned shall complete and submit Standard Form - LLL, "Disclosure of Lobbying
Activities," in accordance with its instructions.

3. The undersigned shall require that the language of this certification be included in
the award documents for all sub awards at all tiers (including contracts, subcontracts, and
sub grants under grants and loans) and that all sub recipients shall certify and disclose
accordingly.

This certification is a material representation of fact upon which reliance was placed
when this transaction was made or entered into. Submission of this certification is a
prerequisite for making or entering into this transaction imposed by section 1352, title 31,
U.S. Code. Any person who fails to file the required certification shall be subject to a
civil penalty of not less than $10,000 and not more than $100,000 for each such failure.

_______________________________________________________________________
(name) (date)

______________________________________
(title)

(08-21-91) PN 171

42


--
- --

This certification is required by the regulations implementing Executive Order 12549, Debarment and
Suspension, 7 CFR Part 3017, Section 3017.510, Participants responsibilities. The regulations were published
as Part IV of the January 30, 1989, Federal Register (pages 4722-4733). Copies of the regulations may be
obtained by contacting the Department of Agriculture agency with which this transaction originated.

(1) The prospective lower tier participant certifies, by submission of this proposal, that neither it nor
its principals is presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared ineligible, or
voluntarily excluded from participation in this transaction by any Federal department or agency.

(2) Where the prospective lower tier participant is unable to certify to any of the statements in this
certification, such prospective participant shall attach an explanation to this proposal.

Organization Name PR/Award Number or Project Name

Name(s) and Title(s) of Authorized Representative(s)

Signature(s) Date

Form AD-1048 (1/92)

 --

1. By signing and submitting this form, the prospective lower tier participant is providing the certification
set out on the reverse side in accordance with these instructions.

2. The certification in this clause is a material representation of fact upon which reliance was placed when
this transaction was entered into. If it is later determined that the prospective lower tier participant knowingly
rendered an erroneous certification, in addition to other remedies available to the Federal Government, the
department or agency with which this transaction originated may pursue available remedies, including
suspension and/or debarment.

3. The prospective lower tier participant shall provide immediate written notice to the person to which this
proposal is submitted if at any time the prospective lower tier participant learns that its certification was
erroneous when submitted or has become erroneous by reason of changed circumstances.

4. The terms covered transaction, debarred," "suspended, ineligible, lower tier covered transaction,
participant, person, primary covered transaction, principal," proposal, and voluntarily excluded, as
used in this clause, have the meanings set out in the Definitions and Coverage sections of rules implementing
Executive Order 12549. You may contact the person to which this proposal is submitted for assistance in
obtaining a copy of those regulations.

5. The prospective lower tier participant agrees by submitting this form that, should the proposed covered
transaction be entered into, it shall not knowingly enter into any lower tier covered transaction with a person
who is debarred, suspended, declared ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from participation in this covered
transaction, unless authorized by the department or agency with which this transaction originated.

6. The prospective lower tier participant further agrees by submitting this form that it will include this
clause titled Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, Ineligibility and Voluntary Exclusion - Lower
Tier Covered Transactions, without modification, in all lower tier covered transactions and in all solicitations
for lower tier covered transactions.

7* A participant in a covered transaction may rely upon a certification of a prospective participant in a

lower tier covered transaction that it is not debarred, suspended, ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from the
covered transaction, unless it knows that the certification is erroneous. A participant may decide the method
and frequency by which it determines the eligibility of its principals. Each participant may, but is not required
to, check the Nonprocurement List.

8. Nothing contained in the foregoing shall be construed to require establishment of a system of records
in order to render in good faith the certification required by this clause. The knowledge and information of
a participant is not required to exceed that which is normally possessed by a prudent person in the ordinary
course of business dealings.

9. Except for transactions authorized under paragraph 5 of these instructions, if a participant in a covered
transaction knowingly enters into a lower tier covered transaction with a person who is suspended, debarred,
ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from participation in this transaction, in addition to other remedies available
to the Federal Government, the department or agency with which this transaction originated may pursue
available remedies, including suspension and/or debarment.

2
Form AD-1048 (1/92)

U. S.GPO: 1996-757-776/201 07
Form RD 400-1 FORM APPROVED
(Rev 5-00) UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE OMB No. 0575-0018

EQUAL OPPORTUNITY AGREEMENT

This agreement, dated ______________________________________________________________________________ between

(herein called Recipient whether one or more) and United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), pursuant to the rules and
regulations of the Secretary of Labor (herein called the Secretary) issued under the authority of Executive Order 11246 as amended,
witnesseth:
In consideration of financial assistance (whether by a loan, grant, loan guaranty, or other form of financial assistance) made or to be
made by the USDA to Recipient, Recipient hereby agrees, if the cash cost of construction work performed by Recipient or a construction
contract financed with such financial assistance exceeds $10,000 - unless exempted by rules, regulations or orders of the Secretary of
Labor issued pursuant to section 204 of Executive Order 11246 of September 24, 1965.
1. To incorporate or cause to be incorporated into any contract for construction work, or modification thereof, subject to the relevant
rules, regulations, and orders of the Secretary or of any prior authority that remain in effect, which is paid for in whole or in part with the
aid of such financial assistance, the following Equal Opportunity Clause:
During the performance of this contract, the contractor agrees as follows:
(a) The contractor will not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, color, religion, sex or
national origin. The contractor will take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are
treated during employment, without regard to their race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Such action shall include, but
not be limited, to the following: employment, upgrading, demotion or transfer; recruitment or recruitment advertising; layoff
or termination; rates of pay or other forms of compensation; and selection for training, including apprenticeship. The contractor
agrees to post in conspicuous places, available to employees and applicants for employment, notices to be provided by the
USDA setting forth the provisions of this nondiscrimination clause.
(b) The contractor will, in all solicitations or advertisements for employees placed by or on behalf of the contractor, state that all
qualified applicants will receive consideration for employment without regard to race, color, religion, sex or national origin.
(c) The contractor will send to each labor union or representative of workers with which he has a collective bargaining agreement
or other contract or understanding, a notice, to be provided by the USDA, advising the said labor union or workers representative
of the contractors commitments under this agreement and shall post copies of the notice in conspicuous places available to employees and
applicants for employment.
(d) The contractor will comply with all provisions of Executive Order 11246 of September 24, 1965, and of all rules, regulations
and relevant orders of the Secretary of Labor.
(e) The contractor will furnish all information and reports required by Executive Order 11246 of September 24, 1965, rules,
regulations, and orders, or pursuant thereto, and will permit access to his books, records, and accounts by the USDA Civil
Rights Office, and the Secretary of Labor for purposes of investigation to ascertain compliance with such rules,
regulations, and orders.
(f) In the event of the contractors noncompliance with the nondiscrimination clauses of this contract or with any of the said rules,
regulations, or orders, this contract may be cancelled, terminated, or suspended in whole or in part and the contractor may be
declared ineligible for further Government contracts or federally assisted construction contracts in accordance with procedures
authorized in Executive Order No. 11246 of September 24, 1965, and such other sanctions may be imposed and remedies invoked as
provided in Executive Order No. 11246 of September 24, 1965, or by rule, regulation or order of the Secretary of Labor, or as otherwise
provided by Law.
(g) The contractor will include the provisions of paragraph 1 and paragraph (a) through (g) in every subcontract or purchase order, unless
exempted by the rules, regulations, or orders of the Secretary of Labor issued pursuant to Section 204 of Executive Order No. 11246 of
September 24, 1965, so that such provisions will be binding upon each subcontractor or vendor. The contractor will take such action with
respect to any subcontract or purchase order as the USDA may direct as a means of enforcing such provisions, including sanctions for
noncompliance: Provided, however, that in the event the contractor becomes involved in, or is threatened with, litigation with a
subcontractor or vendor as a result of such direction by the USDA, the contractor may request the United States to enter into such
litigation to protect the interest of the United States.

Accord ing to th e Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to resp ond
to, a co llection of information unless it displays a valid OMB control number. The valid OMB control number for this information
collectio ns is 057 5-0018. The time required to complete this information collection is es timated to average 10 minutes per respon se,
including the tim e for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and
completing and reviewing the collection of information.

RD 400-1 (Rev. 5-00)

Position 6

2. To be bound by the above equal opportunity clause with respect to its own employment practices when it participates in federally
assisted construction work: Provided, that if the organization so participating is a State or local government, the above equal
opportunity clause is not applicable to any agency, instrumentality or subdivision of such government which does not
participate in work on or under the contract.
3. To notify all prospective contractors to file the required Compliance Statement, Form RD 400-6, with their bids.
4. Form AD-425, Instructions to Contractors, will accompany the notice of award of the contract. Bid conditions for all nonexempt
federal and federally assisted construction contracts require inclusion of the appropriate Hometown or Imposed plan affirmative
action and equal employment opportunity requirements. All bidders must comply with the bid conditions contained in the invitation to
be considered responsible bidders and hence eligible for the award.
5. To assist and cooperate actively with USDA and the Secretary in obtaining the compliance of contractors and subcontractors with
the equal opportunity clause and the rules, regulations, and relevant orders of the Secretary, that it will furnish USDA and the Secretary
such information such as, but not limited to, Form AD 560, Certification of Nonsegregated Facilities, to submit the Monthly
Employment Utilization Report, Form CC-257, as they may require for the supervision of such compliance, and that it will otherwise
assist USDA in the discharge of USDAs primary responsibility for securing compliance.
6. To refrain from entering into any contract or contract modification subject to Executive Order 11246 of September 24, 1965, with a
contractor debarred from, or who has not demonstrated eligibility for, Government contracts and federally assisted construction
contracts pursuant to the Executive Order and will carry out such sanctions and penalties for violation of the equal opportunity clause as
may be imposed upon contractors and subcontractors by USDA or the Secretary of Labor pursuant to Part II, Subpart D, of the
Executive Order.
7. That if the recipient fails or refuses to comply with these undertakings, the USDA may take any or all of the following actions:
Cancel, terminate, or suspend in whole or in part this grant (contract, loan, insurance, guarantee); refrain from extending any further
assistance to the organization under the program with respect to which the failure or refund occurred until satisfactory assurance of
future compliance has been received from such organization; and refer the case to the Department of Justice for appropriate legal
proceedings.

Signed by the Recipient on the date first written above.

Recipient Recipient

(CORPORATE SEAL) Name of Corporate Recipient

Attest: By
President
Secretary

 Position 3


-

(name of recipient)

(address)
--- -
- - -
--- - - -
y - -
- --- - - -
y - - -
- - - -
1. - - - - -
- - -- - - - -- --
-
- - - - -
-- - - -
-- - ---
- - - - - -- - - - - -

-- - - - -- - --
- - - - - --
- -- -- - -
- - -
- - --- -
- - - - - --- - -
- - -- - - - - - ---- -

- - --- - -
- - ----
- - - -
- -
- --- -

- - - -
- -
- - - -

-- -
(name of recipient)
- - - - - - - - -
-

Recipient

Date
-
Title Title
According to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, no persons are required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB control number. The valid OMB
control number for this information collection is 0570-0018. The time required to complete this information is estimated to average 15 minutes per response, including the time for
reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information.

- - - - --
-- - - --
- - - - ---
- -

- - - - - - - - ---
- - - - -
- - - - -
- - -
- - -- -

- - - - -
- - - - - - - - - --
-

- - - - -- - - -- --
- - -
-
- - --
- -
- - - -- - -
--- - -
--- - --
- - -
- - -
- - -- - - - -
- - - --
-
- - - -
- -- --

- -- -
- - -
-
- -
- -- -- -
-
-- - -- -
-- - - -
-- - -

- - - -
-- - - - - -- - - -
--
- -- - - -
--- - - - -
- -- ----

- - - - --
-- - - --
- - - - ---
- -

- --- -- -
--- - -
--- - - -
- -
- --- -
- yy -
- - - -- --- -
-- - -- - -
- - - -
- - -

- -
- yy -
- -- - - - -
- - - - --
- --- --
-- --
-- - -
- -
- - --
-- -
- - - - yy
- - -- -- - -
-- -
- -
- y - - --
- - -
--- - -- yy -
- - - -- -
-
- --- - --
- - -
- - -- -
-
- -- -
-- - - - yy
- - yy
- -- - -
-- - - - - -
--- - yy - -
- -
-
- -- - --
--- -
-
-- -- - - --
- -- - --
-- -
- -

- - -

 -
- -
--- - - - -
- -
-- - - - - -
- - --- -- --
- - - --
-- -- -
-- yy -
-
-- -
yy - yy -
- - - --
- - -

- -- - -- -
yy -
y y
- - yy -
-- --- yy -
- -- - -
- - --
- - -
-- --- --
- - - - -
- - y
- - - - - -
- - - -
yy -
--
- - - -
-- -
-
- - -
-

-
- - - -
-

APPLICATION FOR Version 7/03
FEDERAL ASSISTANCE 2. DATE SUBMITTED Applicant Identifier

1. TYPE OF SUBMISSION: 3. DATE RECEIVED BY STATE State Application Identifier

Application Pre-application
4. DATE RECEIVED BY FEDERAL AGENCY Federal Identifier
Construction Construction
Non-Construction Non-Construction
5. APPLICANT INFORMATION
Legal Name: Organizational Unit:
Department:

Organizational DUNS: Division:

Address: Name and telephone number of person to be contacted on matters

Street: involving this application (give area code)
Prefix: First Name:

City: Middle Name

County: Last Name

State: Zip Code Suffix:

Country: Email:

6. EMPLOYER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER (EIN): Phone Number (give area code) Fax Number ( give area code)

-
8. TYPE OF APPLICATION: 7. TYPE OF APPLICANT: (See back of form for Application Types)
New Continuation Revision
If Revision, enter appropriate letter(s) in box(es)
(See back of form for description of letters.) Other (specify)

Other (specify) 9. NAME OF FEDERAL AGENCY:

10. CATALOG OF FEDERAL DOMESTIC ASSISTANCE NUMBER: 11. DESCRIPTIVE TITLE OF APPLICANTS PROJECT:

TITLE (Name of Program):

-
12. AREAS AFFECTED BY PROJECT (Cities, Counties, States, etc.):

13. PROPOSED PROJECT 14. CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS OF:

Start Date: Ending Date: a. Applicant b. Project

15. ESTIMATED FUNDING: 16. IS APPLICATION SUBJECT TO REVIEW BY STATE EXECUTIVE

ORDER 12372 PROCESS?
00
a. Federal $ . THIS PREAPPLICATION/APPLICATION WAS MADE
a. Yes.
AVAILABLE TO THE STATE EXECUTIVE ORDER 12372
b. Applicant $ .00 PROCESS FOR REVIEW ON
00
c. State $ . DATE:
00
d. Local $ . PROGRAM IS NOT COVERED BY E. O. 12372
b. No.
00
e. Other $ . OR PROGRAM HAS NOT BEEN SELECTED BY STATE
FOR REVIEW
f. Program Income $ .00 17. IS THE APPLICANT DELINQUENT ON ANY FEDERAL DEBT?
00
g. TOTAL $ .
Yes If Yes attach an explanation. No
18. TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF, ALL DATA IN THIS APPLICATION/PREAPPLICATION ARE TRUE AND CORRECT. THE
DOCUMENT HAS BEEN DULY AUTHORIZED BY THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE APPLICANT AND THE APPLICANT WILL COMPLY WITH THE
ATTACHED ASSURANCES IF THE ASSISTANCE IS AWARDED.
a. Authorized Representative
Prefix First Name Middle Name

Last Name Suffix

b. Title c. Telephone Number (give area code)

d. Signature of Authorized Representative e. Date Signed

Previous Edition Usable Standard Form 424 (Rev.9-2003)

Authorized for Local Reproduction Prescribed by OMB Circular A-102

 INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE SF-424

Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 45 minutes per response, including time for reviewing
instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of
information. Send comments regarding the burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for
reducing this burden, to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (0348-0043), Washington, DC 20503.

PLEASE DO NOT RETURN YOUR COMPLETED FORM TO THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET. SEND IT TO THE
ADDRESS PROVIDED BY THE SPONSORING AGENCY.

This is a standard form used by applicants as a required face sheet for pre-applications and applications submitted for Federal
assistance. It will be used by Federal agencies to obtain applicant certification that States which have established a review and comment
procedure in response to Executive Order 12372 and have selected the program to be included in their process, have been given an
opportunity to review the applicants submission.

Item: Entry: Item: Entry:

1. Select Type of Submission. 11. Enter a brief descriptive title of the project. If more than one
program is involved, you should append an explanation on a
separate sheet. If appropriate (e.g., construction or real
property projects), attach a map showing project location. For
preapplications, use a separate sheet to provide a summary
description of this project.
2. Date application submitted to Federal agency (or State if applicable) 12. List only the largest political entities affected (e.g., State,
and applicants control number (if applicable). counties, cities).
3. State use only (if applicable). 13 Enter the proposed start date and end date of the project.

4. Enter Date Received by Federal Agency 14. List the applicants Congressional District and any District(s)
Federal identifier number: If this application is a continuation or affected by the program or project
revision to an existing award, enter the present Federal Identifier
number. If for a new project, leave blank.
5. Enter legal name of applicant, name of primary organizational unit 15 Amount requested or to be contributed during the first
(including division, if applicable), which will undertake the funding/budget period by each contributor. Value of in kind
assistance activity, enter the organizations DUNS number contributions should be included on appropriate lines as
(received from Dun and Bradstreet), enter the complete address of applicable. If the action will result in a dollar change to an
the applicant (including country), and name, telephone number, e- existing award, indicate only the amount of the change. For
mail and fax of the person to contact on matters related to this decreases, enclose the amounts in parentheses. If both basic
application. and supplemental amounts are included, show breakdown on
an attached sheet. For multiple program funding, use totals
and show breakdown using same categories as item 15.
6. Enter Employer Identification Number (EIN) as assigned by the 16. Applicants should contact the State Single Point of Contact
Internal Revenue Service. (SPOC) for Federal Executive Order 12372 to determine
whether the application is subject to the State
intergovernmental review process.
7. Select the appropriate letter in 17. This question applies to the applicant organization, not the
the space provided. I. State Controlled person who signs as the authorized representative. Categories
A. State Institution of Higher of debt include delinquent audit disallowances, loans and
B. County Learning taxes.
C. Municipal J. Private University
D. Township K. Indian Tribe
E. Interstate L. Individual
F. Intermunicipal M. Profit Organization
G. Special District N. Other (Specify)
H. Independent School O. Not for Profit
District Organization
8. Select the type from the following list: 18 To be signed by the authorized representative of the applicant.
"New" means a new assistance award. A copy of the governing bodys authorization for you to sign
Continuation means an extension for an additional this application as official representative must be on file in the
funding/budget period for a project with a projected completion applicants office. (Certain Federal agencies may require that
date. this authorization be submitted as part of the application.)
Revision means any change in the Federal Governments
financial obligation or contingent liability from an existing
obligation. If a revision enter the appropriate letter:
A. Increase Award B. Decrease Award
C. Increase Duration D. Decrease Duration
9. Name of Federal agency from which assistance is being requested
with this application.

10. Use the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance number and title of
the program under which assistance is requested.

SF-424 (Rev. 7-97) Back


- -- - -
- --
-


-

-
-
-- -

--

-- - -- -
-

-- - - -

- -
- --
- -
- - -


- - - -
- -- - - -
public inspection. Any person who fails to file the
--e -l subject to a civil penalty of not less than $10,000 and
not each such failure.



-


- -- - -
- - - -
--
-- -- -
-

- - -

--

-- - - - - -
- - - - -

-- -- - --
-- - - - - - -
- - - -- -- - -

- --
-- -

-
- - -

- - ---
- - - -

- - -
-
-- -

-- - --

- - -- -- - -

- - -

- -- - -- --
- - - -
- - -- -- - - --
- - - -
--- - -

--
- --

This certification is required by the regulations implementing Executive Order 12549, Debarment and
Suspension, 7 CFR Part 3017, Section 3017.510, Participants responsibilities. The regulations were published
as Part IV of the January 30, 1989, Federal Register (pages 4722-4733). Copies of the regulations may be
obtained by contacting the Department of Agriculture agency with which this transaction originated.

(1) The prospective lower tier participant certifies, by submission of this proposal, that neither it nor
its principals is presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared ineligible, or
voluntarily excluded from participation in this transaction by any Federal department or agency.

(2) Where the prospective lower tier participant is unable to certify to any of the statements in this
certification, such prospective participant shall attach an explanation to this proposal.

Organization Name PR/Award Number or Project Name

Name(s) and Title(s) of Authorized Representative(s)

Signature(s) Date

Form AD-1048 (1/92)

 --

1. By signing and submitting this form, the prospective lower tier participant is providing the certification
set out on the reverse side in accordance with these instructions.

2. The certification in this clause is a material representation of fact upon which reliance was placed when
this transaction was entered into. If it is later determined that the prospective lower tier participant knowingly
rendered an erroneous certification, in addition to other remedies available to the Federal Government, the
department or agency with which this transaction originated may pursue available remedies, including
suspension and/or debarment.

3. The prospective lower tier participant shall provide immediate written notice to the person to which this
proposal is submitted if at any time the prospective lower tier participant learns that its certification was
erroneous when submitted or has become erroneous by reason of changed circumstances.

4. The terms covered transaction, debarred," "suspended, ineligible, lower tier covered transaction,
participant, person, primary covered transaction, principal," proposal, and voluntarily excluded, as
used in this clause, have the meanings set out in the Definitions and Coverage sections of rules implementing
Executive Order 12549. You may contact the person to which this proposal is submitted for assistance in
obtaining a copy of those regulations.

5. The prospective lower tier participant agrees by submitting this form that, should the proposed covered
transaction be entered into, it shall not knowingly enter into any lower tier covered transaction with a person
who is debarred, suspended, declared ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from participation in this covered
transaction, unless authorized by the department or agency with which this transaction originated.

6. The prospective lower tier participant further agrees by submitting this form that it will include this
clause titled Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, Ineligibility and Voluntary Exclusion - Lower
Tier Covered Transactions, without modification, in all lower tier covered transactions and in all solicitations
for lower tier covered transactions.

7* A participant in a covered transaction may rely upon a certification of a prospective participant in a

lower tier covered transaction that it is not debarred, suspended, ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from the
covered transaction, unless it knows that the certification is erroneous. A participant may decide the method
and frequency by which it determines the eligibility of its principals. Each participant may, but is not required
to, check the Nonprocurement List.

8. Nothing contained in the foregoing shall be construed to require establishment of a system of records
in order to render in good faith the certification required by this clause. The knowledge and information of
a participant is not required to exceed that which is normally possessed by a prudent person in the ordinary
course of business dealings.

9. Except for transactions authorized under paragraph 5 of these instructions, if a participant in a covered
transaction knowingly enters into a lower tier covered transaction with a person who is suspended, debarred,
ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from participation in this transaction, in addition to other remedies available
to the Federal Government, the department or agency with which this transaction originated may pursue
available remedies, including suspension and/or debarment.

2
Form AD-1048 (1/92)
U. S.GPO: 1996-757-776/201 07

- -- -
- -
- -- -
- - - - - - -
- - - -
-- -- -
-- -

- -

- -

- -

--
- -
--


-- - -
-

- -
- - -
- -
- -

- -
--
-

--

- -

- -
-

- - -- -
- - - -- - - -
- - - - - -

-- - - -
-- -- - - - -
- - - -- -- - - --




- ---- -
-- - - -
- -
- - --

- - - - - - -
- -
- -- -
- - -- -
- -- -

- - - -
- -- - -
- - - -
- - -
-
-

- ---
- - -

- - -

-- - -
- -- -
- - --
- -
-- - - - ---

--- - - -
- - -- -
- - - -
- --- -
- -- - -- - -
-
- --

- ---- - -
- - - ----
- - -

- - - -- - - --
- - - -- -
- - - -

- -
- - - -
-- - -
-

-
-
-
-- - - -
- - -
- -
-- - -

--
- -

- - ---
- - - -

- --
---

-- ---

- -
- -

- - -- -- -
- - - - -
-- --- -
-

- --- - - -
- -
-- - -
-- -- -

--- - --
-- - -

- - ---

- - - -- -
- -

- - -- - - -- - - -
-

- - -

- - - -

- - - - -

-- - - - -- --
- -

- - - - -
- - - - -
-

-- - -- - -
-

-- - -

- -

- --
- - - - -
- - - - -

- - - -




-- -

--
-

- -- -
-

- - --

- - - -
- - - - - - -

--

- - ---
- - -

- - --- - - --

- -

- - -
-

- -- - -
- -

- -

- - - -

--

- - -

--

- -- -
- --

-- - -

- - -
-
--

- - -
- - - -
- - - --
- - -- - -
- - - -
--- - -
- - - -
--

 Hart Dairy Heating and Cooling Energy Efficiency
Improvement

A Proposal Prepared for the United States Department

Of Agriculture
2002 Farm bill Initiative: The Renewable Energy And
Energy Efficiency Program
USDA Farm Bill Section 9006

For Purchase and Installation of a Geothermal Heat Pump

Well-to-Well Energy Efficient
System at the Hart Dairy Farm in Shelly, Idaho

This template has been prepared as a guide to allow users to see the type of information required
to receive grant funding from the USDA Section 9006 program. This template uses fictitious
names, dollar values and project descriptions. It was prepared as an example of what a complete
proposal submitted to the USDA under the Renewable Energy Systems guidelines might look like.
This template was not prepared by and has not been approved or scored by the USDA.

The project described in this proposal is for purchasing and installing an Energy Efficiency
Improvement system (Ground Source Heat Pump).

August 2006
 Table of Contents
I. Forms, Certifications and Organizational Documents.............................................................................. 1

Form SF-424 Application for Federal Assistance ......................................................................... 2

FormSF-424C Budget Information Construction Programs....................................................... 4
Form SF-424D Assurances Construction Programs ................................................................. 6
Form RD 1940-20 Request for Environmental Information .......................................................... 8
AD-1049 Certification Regarding Drug-Free Workplace Requirements (Grants)
Alternative 1-For Grantees Other than Individuals ....................................................................... 14
AD-1048 Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, Ineligibility and Voluntary
Exclusion-Lower Tiered Covered Transactions ............................................................................ 16
Exhibit A-1 of RD Instruction 1940-Q Certification for Contracts Grants and Loans............... 18
Form SF-LLL Disclosure of Lobbying Activities ......................................................................... 19
AD-1047 Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, and Other Responsibility
Matters Primary Covered Transactions ..................................................................................... 21
Form RD 400-1 Equal Opportunity Agreement............................................................................ 23
Form RD 400-4 Assurance Agreement....................................................................................... 25

II. Project Summary ................................................................................................................................... 26

Eligibility.......................................................................................................................................... 27

Applicant Eligibility ......................................................................................................................... 27

Project Eligibility.............................................................................................................................. 27

Operation Description ...................................................................................................................... 28

Financial Information ....................................................................................................................... 29

III. Matching Funds ................................................................................................................................... 29

IV. Self Evaluation Scores...................................................................................................................... 31

V. Technical Report Hart Dairy.............................................................................................................. 34

Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 34

Qualifications of Project Team......................................................................................................... 34

Agreements and Permits................................................................................................................... 36

Energy Assessment........................................................................................................................... 37

Design and Engineering ................................................................................................................... 37

Project Development Schedule......................................................................................................... 39

Project Economic Assessment.......................................................................................................... 40

Equipment Procurement ................................................................................................................... 42

iii
 Equipment Installation...................................................................................................................... 42

Operations and Maintenance ............................................................................................................ 42

Decommissioning ............................................................................................................................. 43

Insurance .......................................................................................................................................... 43

Appendix A. Energy Audit ........................................................................................................................ 45

Appendix B. Engineering Design .............................................................................................................. 63

Appendix C. Financial Commitment Letter............................................................................................... 71

Appendix D. Federal Tax Return............................................................................................................... 73

Appendix E. Hart Dairy Income Statement ............................................................................................... 75

iv
I. Forms, Certifications and Organizational Documents

This section contains the following forms and certifications required by the USDA 9006 program.

Form SF-424 Application for Federal Assistance

FormSF-424C Budget Information Construction Programs

Form SF-424D Assurances Construction Programs

Form RD 1940-20 Request for Environmental Information

AD-1049 Certification Regarding Drug-Free Workplace Requirements (Grants)

Alternative 1-For Grantees Other than Individuals

AD-1048 Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, Ineligibility and Voluntary

Exclusion-Lower Tiered Covered Transactions

Exhibit A-1 of RD Instruction 1940-Q Certification for Contracts Grants and Loans

Form SF-LLL Disclosure of Lobbying Activities

AD-1047 Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, and Other Responsibility

Matters Primary Covered Transactions

Form RD 400-1 Equal Opportunity Agreement

Form RD 400-4 Assurance Agreement

1
2
3
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
 -

CERTIFICATION FOR CONTRACTS, GRANTS AND LOANS

The undersigned certifies, to the best of his or her knowledge and belief, that:

1. No Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid, by or on behalf of

the undersigned, to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or
employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or
an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with the awarding of any Federal
contract, the making of any Federal grant or Federal loan, and the extension,
continuation, renewal, amendment, or modification of any Federal contract, grant or loan.

2. If any funds other than Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid to
any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any
agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a
Member of Congress in connection with this Federal contract, grant or loan, the
undersigned shall complete and submit Standard Form - LLL, "Disclosure of Lobbying
Activities," in accordance with its instructions.

3. The undersigned shall require that the language of this certification be included in
the award documents for all subawards at all tiers (including contracts, subcontracts, and
subgrants under grants and loans) and that all subrecipients shall certify and disclose
accordingly.

This certification is a material representation of fact upon which reliance was placed
when this transaction was made or entered into. Submission of this certification is a
prerequisite for making or entering into this transaction imposed by section 1352, title 31,
U.S. Code. Any person who fails to file the required certification shall be subject to a
civil penalty of not less than $10,000 and not more than $100,000 for each such failure.

______________________________________
Lee Hart 29 September 2006

______________________________________
Owner, Hart Dairy

oOo

(08-21-91) PN 171

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
II. Project Summary
This project, entitled Hart Dairy Heating and Cooling Energy Efficiency Improvement, seeks to
decrease some of the Hart Dairys high-energy costs by using ground source heat pump
technology on the farm located in southeast Idaho about 3 miles from the town of Shelley
(population 3,813) in Bingham County, Idaho. The project is for the purchase of a renewable
energy system and geothermal components necessary to supply hot water for our dairy
operations.

Satellite Image of Shelly Idaho from Google Earth.com

We believe that we will experience significant financial savings by using the geothermal resource
via a ground source heat pump in our dairy operations. Recognizing the potential cost savings
involved with the use of geothermal energy we plan to use the geothermal resource for:
1. Cleaning our facilities, and processing equipment.
2. Space heating and cooling all the buildings on our dairy operation.

The engineering study indicates that the annual energy required to heat and cool the buildings is
552 million BTUs (426M heating and 126M cooling) which is 5,520 therms. Today we are
purchasing gas from Intermountain Gas Company at the rate of 1.255 $/therm this project would
reduce the Hart Dairy Farm natural gas bill by approximately $6,927 a year. Given the rising cost
of natural gas, these savings are expected to increase in years to come. The local natural gas
supplier, Intermountain Gas, has applied to the Idaho Public Utilities Commission for permission
to raise natural gas prices 28%. If this rate increase is approved, this project would result in
$8,866 in annual savings.

26
This project will be designed and engineered to meet the intended purpose of providing heat and
chilling capacity to the facility, and it will meet all applicable public safety regulations and laws.

Total project cost is estimated to be $87,580. The implementation of this project hinges on
receiving a grant in the amount of $21,895 (25% of the total project cost) from the USDAs
Renewable Energy/Energy Efficiency Improvements Program (Section 9006). The estimated
timeframe for project completion is approximately 5 months from the date Mr. Hart signs the grant
agreement and the funds are obligated. A detailed project timeline which covers planning,
permitting, construction and startup is included with the technical section (Section V) of this
application. The anticipated operational date for the geothermal system is February 2007.

Eligibility

Applicant Eligibility

Lee Hart and his wife Elle function as the sole owners of Hart Dairy Farm. The Harts two sons,
Charles and John Hart, assist with daily operations and maintenance of the dairy. Hart Dairy
Farm exists as a sole proprietorship. No parent, subsidiary or affiliate organizations involved with
Hart Dairy affect this project. Hart Dairy is a small dairy that milks 260 cows twice a day. A milk
distributor comes twice daily and picks up milk at our dairy farm and transfers it to a dairy
producer. Mr. Lee Hart, owner of Hart Dairy Farms exists as an eligible applicant for the USDA
Rural Development Farm Bill section 9006, Renewable Energy Systems and Energy Efficiency
Improvements Program based on the following:
Hart Dairy Farm operates as an agricultural producer engaged in the production and
handling of dairy products
Mr. Hart earns over 90% of his income from this dairy operation
Hart Dairy exists as a sole proprietorship
The sole owner of Hart Dairy, Mr. Lee Hart, is a citizen of the United States, as are his
wife Elle and two sons Charles and John
Mr. Hart does not have any outstanding judgments obtained by the United States in
Federal Court, and is not delinquent in the payment of Federal income taxes or Federal
debt
Mr. Hart demonstrates financial need. Financial analysis shows Mr. Hart would not be
able to maintain his cash flow and income over the long term without this grant
assistance. A letter from Harts lending institution has been included in this application
(Appendix C). The project will not be attempted without grant assistance.
Mr. Hart has never applied for nor received a grant or loan from USDA or any other
Federal Agency

Project Eligibility

Hart Dairy is an eligible project based on the following reasons:

The Hart Dairy project will increase the efficiency of our dairy operations by utilizing the
renewable geothermal energy source abundantly available on our property
The project is for the purchase of a renewable energy system, geothermal components
necessary to supply hot water for our dairy operations.
The components proposed for this project are all commercially available, with proven
operating histories, established designs and installation procedures.
This project is located in a rural area near Shelly, Idaho. Shelly is located in Bingham
county (pop. 41,735) approximately 12 miles south of the town of Idaho Falls. Shelly is
not considered an urbanized area adjacent to any city or town with a population over
50,000.
Lee Hart, owner and operator of the dairy, has no plans to sell the dairy in the
foreseeable future and fully expects to own and control the proposed project for the

27
 period required to pay off the debt incurred by the system. Once trained by the system
installers on the operations and maintenance of the system, Mr. Hart will be responsible
for the operations and maintenance of the system.
The annual revenue from Mr. Harts farming and dairy operation and the fuel savings
from the project are sufficient to provide for the operation, management, and debt service
for the life of the project
This project will alleviate approximately 85% of Mr. Harts annual natural gas utility bill.
He will perform the routine maintenance himself and, therefore, will not have to pay for
this service.

Operation Description

The Hart Dairy operations are located on approximately 30 acres of the 360 total acres owned
and operated by Lee and Elle Hart. Lee and Elle Hart have operated the dairy for 19 years.
However, the dairy has actually been in operation for over 30 years. Prior to Mr. Lee Harts
management, the dairy was owned and operated by his father, John Hart Sr.

The operation
currently has
approximately 400
cows, 2 enclosed
buildings for
milking and
processing the
milk, 3 silos for
storing feed and
multiple covered
stalls and feeding
areas for the
livestock. Some
but not all of the
feed used in the
dairy operation is
grown at the Hart
farm which has
approximately 320
acres of farmable
land irrigated with a
center pivot
irrigation system.
Standard farm
Aerial view of the Hart Dairy. Photo from Google Earth equipment for
planting,
harvesting, storing and moving hay and grain crops are part of this farming operation. The
2
proposed heating system will heat approximately 1800 ft of enclosed space used for milking and
milk processing, and supply energy for the milk processing chilling needs for the dairy.

This is a family run dairy with occasional part time and seasonal labor help. The future plans are
to turn the operation over to Lee Harts son Charles, when Lee Hart retires. This dairy operation
will be controlled by the Hart family for the life of the project.

28
Financial Information

Hart Dairy is a small family operated dairy that is not a subsidiary of any parent company or
corporation, and does not have any subsidiary or affiliates at other locations. In 2005, the last full
accounting year, the dairy had total income of $856,500 and total expenses of $795,925 with a
net income of $60,575. The gross market value for agricultural products sold is $756,000 for milk
products, $19,000 for calves, and $63,000 for cattle sold. Mr. Hart and his wife Elle have no
nonfarm income. A copy of the Harts Federal Income Tax Return for 2005 is included in
Appendix D of this application. A current year Profit and Loss Statement is included in Appendix
E of this application. The assumptions used for the financial projections for 2006, 2007 and 2008
are:
The dairy operation will remain the same size with no increase in livestock or milk
production
Labor rates will increase 1% per year
Payroll Taxes will increase 1.5% in year 1, 1.5% in year 2 and 1.5% in year 3
Operating Interest dollars will increase by 18.2% in year 1 and remain steady at $22K for
the next 3 years
Feed costs will decrease from $327K to $320K and remain steady for the next 3 years
Property taxes will not change in the next 3 years
Natural Gas costs will decrease from approximately $5,300 to zero
Other utility cost will remain constant at about $25K

III. Matching Funds

Funding for this geothermal project will come from Hart Dairy operating Funds, a loan from Idaho
Farm Credit Services, and a grant from the USDA for a purchase and installation of a Renewable
Energy System. The details of the funding are presented below.

Source of Funding $ Amount Status Contact Information

Hart Dairy Operating
Funds
Idaho Farm Credit
Services
USDA 9006 Grant
Available from Lee Hart P.O. Box 6748, Shelly ID (208)
4,000
Savings Account 526-1000
Mr. Patrick Lanley, Sr Business Analyst,
61,685 Approved Loan Idaho Farm Credit Services, P.O. Box 1625,
Idaho Falls, ID (208) 526-1000
Mr. John Farmer, Business Program
Pending Award of Specialist, USDA Rural Development, 725
21,895
USDA Grant Jensen Grove Drive, Blackfoot, ID 83221
(208) 785-5840

Total Project Cost 87,580

Project Cost

The proposed modification and upgrade to the Hart Dairy, to take advantage of the geothermal
heat pump efficiencies is estimated to cost $87,580. This grant proposal is requesting the
maximum 25% of that total, or $21,895. Project cost details are presented below.

29
 Hart Dairy Well to Well GSHP Project - Estimated Cost

Planning and Permitting Quantity Units Unit Cost $'s Total

Engineering Consultant - Detailed Design 48 hours 120 $5,760
Drilling Surety bond 1 lump 5,000 $5,000
Drilling Permit - Production Well 1 lump 200 $200
Drilling Permit - Injection Well 1 lump 200 $200
Injection Well Permit 1 lump 300 $300
Engineering Consultant - Construction &
40 hours 120 $4,800
Installation

Planning & Permitting Subtotal $16,260

Well Construction Quantity Units Unit Cost $'s Total

Production Well
Drilling & Materials 250 feet 30 $7,500
Well pump, pressure tank, controls 1 lump 2,000 $2,000

Injection Well
Drilling & Materials 250 feet 30 $7,500

Distribution Piping
PVC pipe, trench & backfill, pipe bending,
200 feet 20 $4,000
associated fittings & valves

Well Construction Subtotal $21,000

Geothermal Energy Utilization

Main Heat Exchanger (plate type) 12 ton 50 $600

Space Heating Load 1 - Milk Barn (retrofit from existing boiler)

Wall cut, piping, fittings 1 lump 1,750 $1,750
Heat Pump (water-to-water) 6 ton 1,500 $9,000
Circulating pump, controls 2 lump 500 $1,000

Space Heating Load 2 Bulk Tank Room (retrofit from existing boiler)
Wall cut, piping, fittings 1 lump 1,750 $1,750
Heat Pump (water-to-water) 3 ton 1,500 $4,500
Circulating pump, controls 2 lump 500 $1,000

Hot Water Load 1 - Cow Washing

Wall cut, piping, fittings 1 lump 1,750 $1,750
Heat Pump (water-to-water) 3.5 ton 1,500 $5,250
Hot water storage tank (w/backup) 300 gallon 12 $3,600
Circulating pump, controls 2 lump 500 $1,000

Hot Water Load 2 - Floors, Udders

Wall cut, piping, fittings 1 lump 1,750 $1,750
Heat Pump (water-to-water) 3 ton 1,500 $4,500
Hot water storage tank (w/backup) 260 gallon 12 $3,120
Circulating pump, controls 2 lump 500 $1,000

Milk Chilling
Wall cut, piping, fittings 1 lump 1,750 $1,750
Heat Pump (water-to-water) 4 ton 1,500 $6,000
Storage tank (assume existing tank) 0 gallon 0 $0
Circulating pump, controls 2 lump 500 $1,000

Geothermal Energy Utilization Subtotal $50,320

Total Estimated Project Cost $87,580

30
IV. Self Evaluation Scores

31
32
33
V. Technical Report Hart Dairy
Introduction

Idaho has abundant geothermal resources, especially the central and southern parts of the state
where the majority of the geothermal wells and springs are found. These resources have been
developed over the last 100+ years for recreation, district heating, domestic heating, aquaculture,
and greenhouse operations. Some of these geothermal resources are used for direct use heating
applications in dairies. Mr. Hart has had discussions with some of those dairy owners. Originally
Mr. Hart looked into direct use geothermal heating, but learned that he does not have a high
temperature resource in his area. He then considered the next alternative, ground source heat
pumps or geoexchange units.

I. Qualifications of Project Team

This project was conceptually planned prior to preparing this USDA Farm Bill Section 9006
application. Lee Hart is somewhat familiar with geothermal direct use and ground source heat
pumps or geoexchange applications. Mr. Hart first had an energy audit performed on his dairy
operations, and then contacted a licensed Professional Engineer (PE) with significant experience
in geoexchange applications, design and construction for preliminary guidance on the project.
The overall project will consist of designing, bidding, and building a ground source heat pump or
geoexchange heating system for parts of the Hart Dairy.

34
Project Management - Mr. Lee Hart will serve as the project manager. Prior to taking over the
family dairy farm business he received his BS in Mechanical Engineering from the University of
New Mexico in Albuquerque, NM. Lee Hart has 25 years of agriculture experience, including 20
years of owning, operating and managing the Hart Dairy in Shelly, Idaho. Lee will be directly
responsible for the dairy operations after the project changes have been implemented.

Energy Auditor Mr. Donald Kilowatt PE., is president of Idaho Energy Associates Inc. in Sun
Valley, ID (208-526-7468). He is a registered Professional Engineer in the state of Idaho, and a
Certified Energy Manager (CEM) with certification from the Association of Energy Engineers. In
addition, he also holds a Bonneville Power Administration Residential Energy Auditor
Certification. Mr. Kilowatt performed an energy audit at Hart Dairy in the spring of 2006. Mr.
Kilowatt can be contacted at (208) 526-7468

Design, Engineering & Installation Oversight Mr. Andrew Chiasson, the project engineer
works for the GeoHeat Center at the Oregon Institute of Technology in Klamath Falls, Oregon.
He holds Bachelors and Masters Degrees in Geological Engineering and a Masters Degree in
Mechanical Engineering. He is a licensed Professional Engineer in Idaho, Washington and
Oregon with 10 years of experience in design and installation of geothermal systems. Mr.
Chiasson can be contacted at (541) 885-1750

System Installation Mr. Hart has contacted two SE Idaho drilling companies and two local
Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning (HVAC) contractors who have expressed interest in
bidding on the job. Both drilling companies are licensed in the state of Idaho and have
experience in geothermal drilling and ground source heat pump applications. The HVAC
companies both have personnel on staff that are certified as Geoexchange Designers through the
Association of Energy Engineers and the Geothermal Heat Pump Consortium (GHPC). They are
also certified in installation of geoexchange systems through the International Ground Source
Heat Pump Association.

Systems Operation - Mr. Hart will be directly responsible for servicing, operating and
maintaining the geothermal heating system once installed. As mentioned previously, Mr. Hart
has a BS degree in Mechanical Engineering. He will receive training from the equipment
manufactures and the project engineer. He will be assisted by his two sons Charles and John,
who once trained by the system installer on the operations and maintenance of the systems, will
be primarily responsible for the operations and maintenance. The key components and moving
parts in the system are primarily pumps and motors, with which Mr. Hart, as a dairy owner and
operator, and his sons have extensive installation, maintenance and repair experience. In
addition, the heat exchanger equipment is very similar to equipment associated with his milk
chilling process.

Equipment Manufacturers - The equipment being installed is comprised of off-the-shelf

components that can be supplied by a number of manufacturers. None of the components for the
proposed system are one-of-a-kind or special order. None of the components require special
design and will not be custom manufactured. Bids will be requested from a number of suppliers
in order to get the best pricing for all the components.

To the best of our knowledge there currently are no dairies in southeast Idaho that use ground
source heat pumps or geoexchange systems to heat their facilities.

35
II. Agreements and Permits
The Idaho Department of Water Resources (IDWR) and the Department of Environmental Quality
(DEQ) are the lead agencies for administering and enforcing the rules and regulations governing
water use and quality in Idaho. IDWR is responsible for issuing water rights, well construction
permits and underground fluid injection wells.

Water for ground source heat pumps or geoexchange systems, is regulated with the rules
governing groundwater appropriation and well drilling regulations in Idaho. Appropriate forms and
notifications for drilling are available on the internet. It is anticipated that it will take approximately
3 weeks to get the appropriate permits from the state of Idaho for this project. Rules and
regulations governing well construction are in IDAPA 37 Title 3 Chapter 9.

The Hart Dairy Farm does not fall within an IDWR area of drilling concern and no additional well
construction requirements are necessary. Hart Dairy farms own all the water rights within a 3-
mile radius of the proposed project and currently have a valid water rights permit. The Hart Dairy
Farm is not within a designated ground water management areas (GWMAs) or critical ground
water areas (CGWAs). We have contacted county planning and health departments to check for
any additional regulations or ordinances covering well placement and construction and there are
none in this location.

A drilling prospectus will be submitted to IDWR prior to construction. A surety bond or cash bond
as required by Idaho code section 42-233 with IDWR. The amount of the bond ranges from
$5000, up to $20,000, as determined by the depth and temperature of the well. There will be a
drilling permit fee of $200. The well will be drilled by a licensed and bonded well contractor.

The preferred method of disposing of geoexchange fluids is to return them to the ground by way
of injection wells. Hart Dairy Farms plans to drill an injection well to dispose of the water after it
has passed through their heating systems. IDWR administers the Idaho Waste Disposal and
Injection Well program. Geothermal heat wells and closed loop heat pump return wells are both
classified in Idaho as Class V injection wells. Injection wells that are more than 18 feet deep
must apply for a permit from IDWR prior to construction. This applies to closed-loop heat
exchange wells, if they are deeper than 18 feet (5.5 m). Hart Dairy Farms will apply for the $100
permit. There will be a 30-day review period in addition to the normal processing time for this
injection will permit. The proposed Hart Dairy Farms project is expected to require less than 50
gpm of fluid, and may be exempt from the permit provisions. This will be determined with
consultation with IDWR personnel.

We have contacted the county and inquired about zoning and code requirements and there are
none that affect this project.

There are no licenses required to own and operate the type of equipment we are proposing to
install.

State health officials have been contacted and they indicated that as long as the temperatures
meet the state health code requirements for cleaning and operation, there will be not be any
changes in our existing permits and periodic inspections.

Most of the components of the proposed system are piping and valves which come with standard
manufacturer warranties. Depending on which manufacture we choose, the warranties for the
heat exchangers and controllers will vary but will be what is commonly accepted within the
industry.

The entire project will be on Hart Dairy property, and there will be no environmental impacts. The
water used in this system is essentially in a closed loop and will be extracted from on well and
injected to another well. The process used for washing and cleaning will not change, other than
the source of the heat for the water, and thus no environmental impacts.

36
III. Energy Assessment

We contacted both the local natural gas supplier and electric suppliers to our farm to inquire
about an energy audit. Both indicated they did not have the capability to perform they type of
audit required by the solicitation. We then contacted Idaho Energy Associates and contracted
with them for an energy audit. The complete audit is included in Appendix A. A summary of the
final report is presented here:

Mr. Donald Kilowatt, PE of Idaho Energy Associates Inc. performed this energy audit of the Hart
Dairy operations on April 3, 2006. The purpose of the energy audit was to determine if it would
be cost effective for Mr. Hart to switch from natural gas to ground source heat pump or
geoexchange technology to supply heating and chilling needs for his milking and milk processing
operations. While the audit did look at other energy sources and uses such as electricity, no
recommendations on those energy uses were included. This audit is not intended to provide
detailed specifications for a geoexchange system, as Mr. Hart has hired an engineering firm that
specializes in geothermal systems to perform that work. The results of this audit indicate that Mr.
Hart could expect to invest approximately $90,000 in wells and equipment and realize a simple
project payback in approximately 12 years based on current natural gas prices. If natural gas
prices are assumed to increase 5% a year, the simple payback would occur in approximately 10
years. In addition, there are some energy conservation improvements that Mr. Hart could make
that would lower his energy consumption, immediately, even if he were to choose not to move
forward with conversion to a geoexchange system.. In summary, the milking barn and bulk tank
room facilities at Hart Dairy would be ideal candidates for a geoexchange system for facility
heating and process heating and cooling.

IV. Design and Engineering

Mr. Hart became interested in using the geothermal resource available on his property after
attending a geothermal direct use workshop in Boise, Idaho sponsored by the Department of
Energy GeoPowering The West program. The recent increase in fuel cost for operating the dairy
led to an in-depth analysis of how the dairy could reduce costs. The geothermal option was
selected because he already owns the resource, and it would require minimal disruption of his
operations to install a ground source heat pump or geoexchange system.

A preliminary design of this project was prepared by Andrew Chiasson with the assistance of Mr.
Hart. The preliminary design and calculations are presented in Appendix B. Mr. Chiasson, from
the GeoHeat Center at the Oregon Institute of Technology in Klamath Falls, Oregon., is a
licensed Professional Engineer (PE) with 10 years of experience in research and development,
design and construction of geothermal direct use projects. The GeoHeat Center, has worked on
hundreds of projects both in the U.S. and internationally over the last 20 years. The GeoHeat
Center works exclusively on geothermal direct use and geoexchange applications.

This project will be designed by a licensed professional engineer to meet all of the local, state and
federal laws, regulations, agreements, permits, codes and standards required for ground source
heat pump or geoexchange systems. Well drilling, construction and equipment installation will be
done by licensed professionals.

This project consists of: 1) drilling a 250 supply well, 2) installing piping from the supply well to
the facilities to be heated, 3) retrofitting the existing boiler and installing heat exchange
equipment, 4) drilling and completing a 250 injection well, 5) installing piping from the new
heating equipment to the injection well.

This project will require drilling one production and one disposal well, and trenching to install
approximately 200 ft of 3-inch pipe. Once the piping is installed there will be no land use impacts.
2
The disposal well will have a footprint of approximately 50 ft when finished. There is ample room

37
and a number of locations where the injection will can be placed. There will be no impacts to air
quality, water quality, and wildlife habitat. There will be no noise pollution, soil degradation or
odor associated with this project.

Mr. Hart plans to leave the current natural gas heating systems in place to provide backup
heating capability should it ever be necessary.

Hart Dairy Farms and the adjacent 360 acres has been owned and operated by Lee and Elle Hart
for 19 years. The dairy has actually been in operation for over 30 years. Prior to Mr. Lee Harts
management, the dairy was owned and operated by his father, Robert Hart. This is a family run
dairy, and the future plans are to turn the operation over to Lee Harts son Charles when Lee Hart
retires. This dairy operation will be controlled by the Hart family for the life of the project.

Potential equipment suppliers of the major components (Heat Pump, Chillers, and Piping) are
listed below. Other suppliers may be identified by the contractor at the time of bidding.

Heat Pump Equipment

McQuay International
13600 Industrial Park Blvd.
Plymouth, MN 55440
Ph: (763) 553-5330
Fax: (763) 553-5177
Trane, Commercial Systems
Group
2727 South Ave.
La Crosse, WI 54601
Ph: (608) 787-3445
York International Corporation
631-T Richmond Avenue
P.O. Box 1592
York, PA 17405-1592
Ph: (717) 771-7890

Chillers, Absorption / Adsorption

Carrier Corporation (ABS)
Carrier Parkway
Syracuse, NY 13221
Ph: (315) 432-6000
Harris Thermal Transfer Aero Tech Mfg. Incorporated
Products (ABS) (ABS)
615 S. Springbrook Rd. 395 W. 1100 N
Newberg, OR North Salt Lake, UT 84054
Ph: (503) 538-1260 Ph: (801) 292-0493

KRUM International (ADS)
3314 Walnut Bend Ln.
Houston. TX 77042
Ph: (713) 784-0303
The Trane Company (ABS) Yazaki North America,
Commercial Systems Group Inc.(ABS)
2727 South Avenue 6700 Haggery Rd.
La Crosse, WI 54601-7599 Canton, MI 48187
Ph: (608) 787-3445 Ph: (734) 983-1000
Small Tonnage Lithium
Bromide

York International Corporation McQuay International

(ABS) 13600 Industrial Park Blvd.
631 S. Richland Ave. P.O. Box Plymouth, MN 55441
1592 Ph: (763) 553-5330
York, PA 17405 Fax: (763) 553-5177
Ph: (717) 771-7890

Piping
Polybutylene / Polyethylene
Central Plastics Corporation
Box 3129
Shawneee, OK 74301
Ph: 1 (800) 645-3872
(405) 273-6302
Plexco
1050 Busse Rd. #200
Bensenville, IL 60106
Ph: (630) 350-3700
Vanguard Industries
901 N. Vanguard Street
McPherson, KS 67460
Ph: 1 (800) 775-5039
(316) 241-6369

38
Plate Heat Exchangers
Alfa-Laval Thermal
5400 International Trade Dr.
Richmond, VA 23231
Ph: (804) 222-5300
APV Americas, Heat Transfer Graham Manufacturing
395 Fillmore Avenue Company
Tonawanda Industrial Park 20 Florence Avenue
Tonawanda, NY 14150 Batavia, NY 14021
Ph: (716) 692-3000 Ph: (716) 343-2216

Bell and Gossett Paul Mueller Company Tranter Inc.

ITT Industries
8200 N. Austin Ave.
Morton Grove, IL 60053
Ph: (800) 243-8160
(847) 966-3700
P.O. Box 828 Texas Division
Springfield, MO 65801 P.O. Box 2289
Ph: (417) 831-3000 Wichita Falls, TX 76307
Ph: (940) 723-7125

V. Project Development Schedule

Significant tasks for this project include preparation of detailed specifications, obtaining required
permits, obtaining material and construction bids, ordering materials, construction and startup. A
detailed timeline for the project is presented in the Table 1 and the timeline diagram. The entire
project is expected to take a little over 5 months from inception to completion. The project will
begin as soon as USDA approval is received. The project work and completion is not dependent
on seasonal conditions and can begin at any time during the year. The project will be completed
within 1 year of the date of approval from USDA.

Table 1 Project Schedule

Start Finish Resource
Task Duration
Date Date Name
Prepare Detailed Project PE -
21 days 4/3/06 5/1/06
Specs : Wells & Equipment Consultant

Apply for Loans 3 days 5/1/06 5/3/06 Lee Hart

Obtain Drilling Permits 40 days 5/2/06 6/26/06 Lee Hart

Obtain County Construction

3 days 5/22/06 5/24/06 Lee Hart
Permits
Obtain Well Drilling &
21 days 5/29/06 6/26/06 Lee Hart
Completion Bids
Obtain Equipment &
21 days 5/29/06 6/26/06 Lee Hart
Materials Bids
Obtain Construction &
14 days 6/27/06 7/14/06 Lee Hart
Installation Bids

Order Materials 1 day 7/17/06 7/17/06 Lee Hart

Contract Drilling 2 days 6/27/06 6/28/06 Lee Hart

Contract Construction &

20 days 7/17/06 8/11/06 Lee Hart
Installation

39
 Supervise Construction & PE -
10 days 8/18/06 8/31/06
Installation Consultant
Drill Production and
2 days 8/17/06 8/18/06 Driller
Injection Wells

Install and test well pump 1 day 8/21/06 8/21/06 Driller

Site Preparation - Trenching

2 days 8/22/06 8/23/06 Lee Hart
& leveling
Installation of Well House -
1 day 8/24/06 8/24/06 Lee Hart
supply well
Install Piping, Heat
3 days 8/25/06 8/29/06 Contractors
Exchangers & Controllers
Lee Hart / PE
System Testing / Startup 1 day 8/30/06 8/30/06
/ Contractors

System Operation Training 1 day 8/31/06 8/31/06 Lee Hart / PE

VI. Project Economic Assessment

The payback costs for this project have been calculated using three methods. The simple
payback formula is:

TotalEligible Pr ojectCost
Simple Payback Period (in years) =
AnnualSavingsorIncome

The total eligible project cost is estimated at $87,580. The cost of natural gas saved in 2006 $s
is $6,927.

$87,580
Payback period = Simple Payback = 12.6 years
$6,927 / yr

However, its reasonable to assume that the price of natural gas would increase during the life of
this system. Two alternative calculations were made, assuming the price of natural gas
increased 2.5% a year and 5.0% a year. Using a 2.5% increase in natural gas prices, the
payback would be in the 11th year. Using a 5% increase in natural gas prices each year, the
th
payback would be in the 10 year.

Project management - No outside project management cost will be incurred on this project. The
small size of this project allows Mr. Hart, the dairy owner to function as the project manager. His
education as a mechanical engineer and his experience in designing and managing construction
of upgrades to the dairy facilities over the past 20 years qualify him to be the project manager.

Resource Assessment - A detailed resource assessment is not required for this project. The
resource (water) has been adequately defined and tested with the existing well. Pump tests,
chemical analysis of the water and annual temperature measurements over the life of the existing
well confirm that an adequate resource exists.

Project Design - A preliminary design (Appendix B) has been completed by a licensed

Professional Engineer with experience in geothermal direct use applications. Approximately 50

40
hours of additional engineering consultations at approximately $120.00/hr ($6,000 total) will be
required to complete the design, installation and startup.

Project Permitting -Project permitting will be performed by Mr. Hart. His time will not be charged
to the project. The cost of permits including a drilling permit, injection well permit and bond for
the drilling operations are expected to cost less than $600 for the two wells. The drilling bond will
be approximately $500.

Site preparation The proposed location for the two wells are clear of underground and
overhead obstructions, and are not encumbered by any easements or legal constraints. No
special siting requirements are applicable. All site preparation work will be done by employees of
Hart Dairy. The dairy has the necessary equipment and tools for trenching operations and earth
moving that would be associated with providing a drilling pad, pipe trenching and leveling. The
dairy also has the necessary equipment and skills for any modifications to existing facilities or
equipment that are required prior to installation of the new equipment.

Installation Installation cost are included in the cost estimate in Appendix B.

Financing Initial discussions have been held with Mr. Harts financial institution. They have
agreed to provide financing based on the information provided in this application assuming the
USDA grant covers 25% of the project cost. A copy of their letter of commitment is provided in
Appendix C of this proposal. Also included is a copy of Mr. Harts Federal Tax return for 2005
(Appendix D).

Startup There will be no special startup costs associated with this project, other than the
engineer consultation fee described in the Project Design section above.

Maintenance Costs Maintenance cost are predicted to be similar to the maintenance cost with
the current operation. The new system will add additional circulation pumps and control systems,
but these components have low failure rates and minimal maintenance costs associated with
them.

Annual Revenue and Expenses - This project is not designed to provide direct revenue to Hart
Dairy by selling power. Energy cost savings, by using geothermal resources instead of natural
gas is the ultimate goal. The current system for heating the Hart Dairy facilities relied on boilers
fired with natural gas. The current price of natural gas is from Intermountain Gas is
approximately $1.2555/therm. The estimated annual heating required for Hart Dairy is
547MMBtu or 5,470 therms. With a boiler operating at 80% efficiency, approximately 6,838
therms of natural gas would be required to meet the annual heating demand, which, at todays
Intermountain Gas Company rates, would cost about $6,864. Hart Dairy has other gas needs
that would not be affected by this project.

Investment, Productivity, Tax, Loan and Grant Incentives Mr. Hart is exploring the
possibility of obtaining a loan through the State of Idaho. The state has a low interest loan
program, administered by the Energy Division of the Idaho Department of Water Resources,
which makes funds available at a 4% interest rate for energy efficiency projects including
geothermal energy projects. Loans are available for retrofit only, with the exception of some
renewable resources. In commercial, industrial, agricultural, and public sectors there is a
minimum loan amount of $1,000 and a maximum cap of $100,000. Loans are repaid in five years
or less. For existing homes or businesses, the savings from reduced usage of conventional fuel
must be sufficient to pay for the projects installation cost (e.g. simple payback of 15 years or
less). While the programs financing requires repayment within five years, this further stipulation
for existing homes and businesses states that the projects cumulative energy savings over a
fifteen year period must be great enough to offset the cost of the project.

41
VII. Equipment Procurement

Equipment Availability The materials required for this project are standard off the shelf items.
With the exception of the heat exchangers and pressure tank, most are available in home and
ranch supply stores, or local plumbing supply business. The heat exchangers are available from
multiple suppliers including those mentioned in the design section above. Pressure tanks are
also available from multiple suppliers such as Flexcon, Franklin Pump Company, and ITT
Industries. Heat exchangers and a pressure tank, and associated controls can be delivered to
the site within 20 days of ordering them.

Procurement of the components of this system will be done in an open and free competitive
basis.

VIII. Equipment Installation

System Installation The plan for construction and installation is shown in the project timeline.
This timeline estimates the entire construction portion of the project to be 11 days from initial well
drilling, to system startup and shakedown. Equipment installation will be done by licensed
professionals in accordance with all applicable safety and work rules.

It is anticipated that there will be no disruption in the twice-daily milking operations at the dairy,
both during construction, and during startup of the system.

System Startup and Shakedown - System start-up will be carried out by a qualified well pump
and controls technician in conjunction with a qualified hydronic heating and plumbing technician.
System start-up will consist of verifying operation of thermostats and controls as designed, and
verifying system pressures and flow rates as designed.

IX. Operations and Maintenance

Operation Requirements The system operation will be based on thermostatic controls and
pressure sensed in the pressure tank. When a thermostat calls for heating, appropriate valves
will open at the heat exchanger, allowing flow of geothermal water through the heating system.
When the pressure correspondingly drops in the pressure tank, the well pump will be energized.
The pump speed will be controlled by pressure in the tank.

Maintenance Requirements - The circulating pumps will require a quarterly visual inspection to
see that seals and connections are not leaking. Otherwise the pumps and motors have no
routine maintenance requirements. The heat exchangers will require quarterly inspection and
may require annual cleaning or de-scaling.

Warranties - The electric motors used in the system are all 1 hp or smaller, and have standard 1
year warranties from the manufactures. Downhole pumps for the production well typically come
with 1 to 2 year warranties from the manufacturer. The heat exchangers typically have a 1-year
warranty.

Expected Equipment Design Life The water used in this well has low solids and corrosives
content, and therefore equipment life should not be affected by the water chemistry. Heat
exchangers used in similar applications have functioned with out failure for over 20 years, and
thus this is the expected life of the heat exchangers on this project. Submersible pumps in similar
well conditions have life expectancies of 12 -15 years. Circulation pumps used in similar
applications have performed for more than 15 years with occasional maintenance on the seals.
The piping used in the system should be good for 50 years or more. The pressure tank has a life
expectancy of 15 years.

42
Risk Management / Equipment Failures The proposed system form an engineering standpoint
in not a complex system. Components most susceptible to failure are controllers and pumps,
which are standard off the shelf items that can be delivered and installed in 24 hrs by Mr. Hart.

Technology Transfer This will be the first dairy in southeastern Idaho to be heated by ground
source heat pump or geoexchange technology. We intended to provide access for the Eastern
Idaho Technical College in nearby Idaho Falls, Idaho to visit our facilities and collect data to
support their programs in Air Conditioning / Refrigeration / Heating Technology. We also plan to
share information on the systems performance with local and state dairy operators through the
local USDA CREES office in Blackfoot Idaho.

X. Decommissioning

There are no plans to decommission this system. If anything, it might be expanded at a

future date if the dairy operations were to grow substantially.

XI. Insurance

There are special insurance requirements for this project and the resulting system. The
dairy is not located in a government defined flood zone. Our insurance carrier has
indicated that the ground source heat pump or geoexchange equipment will be covered
under our existing policy with no increased cost.

43
44
 Appendix A. Energy Audit

An energy audit was conducted by Idaho Energy Associates Inc., in April. The letter
report and the checklist used for the audit are included in this appendix.

45
 April 10, 2006

Mr. Lee Hart

Hart Dairy
1455 South, 2000 East
Shelly, Idaho

Summary

Mr. Donald Kilowatt, PE of Idaho Energy Associates Inc. performed this energy audit of
the Hart Dairy operations on April 3, 2006. The purpose of the energy audit was to
determine if it would be cost effective for Mr. Hart to switch from natural gas to ground
source heat pump or geoexchange technology to supply heating and chilling needs for his
milking and milk processing operations. While the audit did look at other energy sources
and uses such as electricity, no recommendations on those energy uses were included.
This audit is not intended to provide detailed specifications for a geoexchange system, as
Mr. Hart has hired an engineering firm that specializes in geothermal systems to perform
that work. The results of this audit indicate that Mr. Hart could expect to invest
approximately $90,000 in wells and equipment and realize a simple project payback in
approximately 12 years based on current natural gas prices. If natural gas prices are
assumed to increase 5% a year, the simple payback would occur in approximately 10
years. In addition, there are some energy conservation improvements that Mr. Hart could
make that would lower his energy consumption, immediately, even if he were to choose
not to move forward with conversion to a geoexchange system. A copy of the field audit
criteria is attached to this report.

Situation Report

This energy audit was requested by Mr. Lee Hart to support his application to the USDA
for and Energy Efficiency Grant through the USDA 9006 program. This audit consisted
of a walkthrough and inspection of the Hart Dairy operations, using a 73 element
checklist divided into seven categories. The seven general categories are: General
Requirements (4 elements); Energy Efficiency Compliance (45 elements in 6 groups);
Site Responsiveness (5 elements); Water Conservation (6 elements).; Materials
Sensitivity (5 elements); Healthiness (5 elements); and Environmental Releases (3
elements). The complete checklist is attached to this report.

The Hart Dairy operations are located in Snake River Plain of SE Idaho approximately 3
miles south of the town of Shelly. The elevation at their location is 4,609 feet above sea
level. Mean average temperatures for the area are presented in Table 1.

Table 1. Mean Average Temperatures at Shelly Idaho

46
 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Mean
Temp 17.1 22.2 33.4 41.8 50.9 59.8 67.5 66.8 55.6 43.5 30.1 18.1
F

Currently all of the heating and cooling requirements for the dairy operation are
accomplished with natural gas fueled systems. The dairy typically milks 260 cows twice
a day in a 12 station milking barn that is approximately 1,200 sq ft (50l, 24w, 12h)
with a 12 foot ceiling. The milking barn is constructed of cinderblock and steel with R21
insulation in the ceiling. There are no windows in the milking barn. The milking
operations require about 1,300 gallons of heated water each day, for washing the cattle
and the facilities. Hot water is currently provided from a 60hp gas fired boiler. Rinse
water for the milking operations is required to be 160F. Milk processing requires
chilling approximately 2,200 gallons a day of milk from approximately 90 F down to
34F. The chiller being used is a Griton IBC 6106. The bulk tank room where the milk
chilling and storage operations are conducted is approximately 576 sq ft and has 10
ceilings. (24l x 24w x 10h). This building is also constructed of cinderblock with an
insulated metal roof. These buildings are heated by natural gas ceiling mounted heating
units.

Natural gas is provided by Intermountain Gas Company at the rate of $1.255 /therm.
Hart Dairys annual natural gas bill was $8,247 last year. This total includes natural gas
applications in the home and shop, which are not considered in this energy audit.

Potential Improvements

Hart Dairy can decrease their energy consumption in their dairy operations in three ways.
1) While the hygiene and cleaning requirements of the buildings preclude the use of
insulation on the walls, there can be some heating efficiencies gained by adding some
insulation to the ceiling in both buildings.
2) There are a number of pipe runs in the facility that could benefit from pipe insulation
and still meet the hygiene and cleaning requirements.
3) The operation could decrease their natural gas consumption by approximately 5,500
therms by converting to a ground source heat pump system for heating and chilling
operations in the milk barn and bulk tank room.

Technical Analysis

By far, the biggest energy savings for Hart Dairy is associated with converting the water
heating and milk chilling operations to a ground source heat pump or geoexchange
system. This would save the operation approximately 5,500 therms of natural gas energy
load each year. This is approximately $7,000 per year in reduced natural gas costs at the
current price. Increased electrical load associated with the circulation pumps necessary
for the geoexchange system are estimated to add approximately $440 / year at the current
Rocky Mountain Power rate of $0.059897 per kWh. The current electric service

47
provider, Rocky Mountain Power also has some incentives Mr. Hart may qualify for
when he installs a geoexchange system.

Mr. Hart plans to add insulation to the ceiling of both buildings to bring the insulation
factor to R36. This will entail minimal cost and is not part of the grant application this
energy audit is supporting. Mr. Hart also plans to add additional insulation to some of the
piping in his facilities. Both tasks are expected to cost less than $400 combined and will
be done during routine maintenance of the facilities.

This audit is not intended to provide detailed specifications for a geoexchange system, as
Mr. Hart has contacted a professional engineer to provide that service. However, based
on systems that our firm, Idaho Energy Associates Inc., have been involved with in the
past, we estimate that this application will require approximately 10-12 tons of main heat
exchanger capacity, and 20 tons (6 tons space heating barn, 3 tons space heating tank
room, 4 tons cow washing water, 3 tons cleaning water, 4 tons milk chilling) of heat
pump capacity to convert the system from natural gas to geoexchange. Well drilling,
piping, pumps, controllers and heat exchangers for a system of this size typically fall in
the $75,000 to $100,000 range.

Potential Improvements Description

Ground source heat pumps or geoexchange systems have been used throughout the world
for dozens of years. The technology which is similar to operating a common household
refrigerator is well known, and in recent years there have been many refinements that
have improved reliability and durability of the systems in addition to lowering the overall
cost of geoexchange systems. The performance characteristics of the geoexchange units
are well know and documented. All that is required to make a comparison between a
geoexchange and natural gas based system is the inlet water temperature, the price of
natural gas, and the price of electricity that will operate the pumps in the geoexchange
system. Knowing these factors allows qualified engineers to calculate unit sizing to
replace natural gas or electric systems. This energy audit does not provide specifications
for equipment or design of a geoexchange systems. Mr. Hart has hired an engineering
firm that specializes in geothermal systems to perform that work.

A review of the energy bills for Hart Dairy indicates that in the past year (March 2005 to
March 2006) the dairy used 6,571 therms of natural gas. Mr. Hart has one gas meter on
his property. Some of the natural gas was used for heating of the residence and office
space of the dairy. This energy audit did not include the residence or office space;
therefore we were unable to determine the exact usage for the milking and processing
applications alone. However, the engineering study Mr. Hart has commissioned will be
able to quantify this energy requirement.

Mr. Hart has adequate space adjacent to his milking barn and bulk tank room to install a
well to well heat pump system. The well heads and piping will not interfere with other
operations at the dairy. Existing piping in the buildings can be used for hot water

48
delivery. Additional insulation on that piping is recommended. There is ample room in
the milking and processing buildings to install the heat exchanger and other pieces of
equipment associated with a geoexchange system.

A geoexchange system will incorporate some small electrical pumps that were not part of
the original heating system. These pumps are similar to the pumps the dairy uses to
move milk products throughout the process. Mr. Hart has ample experience with
inspection and maintenance of this type of equipment so overall system maintenance
should not be an issue.

In summary, the milking barn and bulk tank room facilities at Hart Dairy would be ideal
candidates for a geoexchange system for facility heating and process heating and cooling.

The information, calculations and conclusions in this report are valid for the
configuration and use of the Hart Dairy facilities at the time of my audit on 3 April 2006.

Respectfully,

Donald Kilowatt, PE
Idaho Energy Associates Inc.
Sun Valley, Idaho

49
 Appendix B. Engineering Design

Process Diagram - Open-Loop Geothermal System

Heating Loads Summary

Cooling Loads Summary

Construction Cost Estimate Open-Loop (Well-to-Well)

63
Appendix B: Process Diagram (Open-Loop Geothermal)

64
Appendix B: Design and Engineering
Heating Loads Summary
Values in red are computed from input
data.
Space Heating Loads
Load 1: Milk Barn
Floor space 1,220 ft2
Design outdoor air
o
temperature: -6 F
Design indoor air
o
temperature: 70 F
Annual heating degree days 7,100
Heat loss at design condition 55 Btu/hr-ft2
Peak heating Load 67,100 Btu/hr
Annual heating energy
required 150 million Btu
Load 2: Bulk Tank Room
Floor space 576 ft2
Design outdoor air
o
temperature: -6 F
Design indoor air
o
temperature: 70 F
Annual heating degree days 7,100
Heat loss at design condition 55 Btu/hr-ft2
Peak heating Load 31,680 Btu/hr
Annual heating energy
required 71 million Btu
Hot Water Heating Loads
Load 1: Cow Washing
Gallons per day required 600 gpd
Number of events per day 2
Minimum storage required 300 gal
Recovery time 4 hr
Peak flow rate 1.3 gpm
o
Inlet water temperature 50 F
Desired outlet water
o
temperature 110 F
Peak Heating Load 37,500 Btu/hr
Annual heating energy
required 110 million Btu
Cow Udders & Milk Barn
Load 2: Floors
Gallons per day required 520 gpd
Number of events per day 2
Minimum storage required 260 gal

65
 Recovery time 4 hr
Peak flow rate 1.1 gpm
o
Inlet water temperature 50 F
Desired outlet water
o
temperature 110 F
Peak Heating Load 32,500 Btu/hr
Annual heating energy
required 95 million Btu
Total Heating Load
Peak hourly 168,780 Btu/hr
Annual 426 million Btu

66
Appendix B: Design and Engineering
Cooling/Refrigeration Loads
Summary
Values in red are computed from
input data.
Space Cooling Loads
Load 1: Milk Barn
Floor space 1,220 ft2
Cooling load per sq. ft 250 ft2/ton
Annual equivalent full load
hours 1,000 hr
Peak cooling Load 58,560 Btu/hr
Annual cooling energy million
required 59 Btu
Load 2: Bulk Tank Room
Floor space 576 ft2
Cooling load per sq. ft 250 ft2/ton
Annual equivalent full load
hours 1,000 hr
Peak cooling Load 27,648 Btu/hr
Annual cooling energy million
required 28 Btu
Process Cooling Loads
Load 1: Milk Chilling
Gallons per day produced 2,340 gpd
o
Starting milk temperature 90 F
o
Chilled milk temperature 34 F
Cooling Load (on storage
tank) 45,549 Btu/hr
Annual cooling energy million
required 40 Btu
Total Cooling Load
Peak hourly 131,757 Btu/hr
11.0 tons
million
Annual 126 Btu

67
Appendix B: Design and
Engineering
Construction Cost Estimate
Unit Sub
Construction Cost Estimate Quantity Units Cost Total Totals

GEOTHERMAL RESOURCE
OPEN-LOOP SYSTEM (WELL-
TO-WELL)
Production Well
Drilling & materials 250 ft $30 $7,500
Well pump, pressure tank,
controls 1 lump $2,000 $2,000
Injection Well
Drilling & materials 250 ft $30 $7,500
Distribution Piping
PVC pipe, trench & backfill,
pipe bedding, associated 200 ft $20 $4,000 $21,000
fittings & valves
GEOTHERMAL ENERGY
UTILIZATTION
Main Heat Exchanger (plate
$50
type) 12 ton $600 $600
Space Heating Load 1 - Milk
Barn
Retrofit from existing boiler

Wall cut, piping, fittings 1 lump $1,750 $1,750

Heat pump (water-to-water) 6 ton $1,500 $9,000
Circulating pump, controls 2 lump $500 $1,000 $11,750
Space Heating Load 2 - Bulk
Tank Room
Retrofit from existing boiler

Wall cut, piping, fittings 1 lump $1,750 $1,750

Heat pump (water-to-water) 3 ton $1,500 $4,500
Circulating pump, controls 2 lump $500 $1,000 $7,250
Hot Water Load 1 - Cow
Washing
Wall cut, piping, fittings 1 lump $1,750 $1,750
Heat pump (water-to-water) 3.5 ton $1,500 $5,250
Hot water storage tank (w.
$12
backup) 300 gal $3,600
Circulating pump, controls 2 lump $500 $1,000 $11,600
Hot Water Load 2 - Floors,
Udders
Wall cut, piping, fittings 1 lump $1,750 $1,750

68
 Heat pump (water-to-water) 3 ton $1,500 $4,500
Hot water storage tank (w.
$12
backup) 260 gal $3,120
Circulating pump, controls 2 lump $500 $1,000 $10,370
Milk Chilling
Wall cut, piping, fittings 1 lump $1,750 $1,750
Heat pump (water-to-water) 4 ton $1,500 $6,000
Storage tank (assume existing
$0
already) 0 gal $0
Circulating pump, controls 2 lump $500 $1,000 $8,750
CONSTRUCTION GRAND
TOTAL $71,320

69
70
 Appendix C. Financial Commitment Letter

Idaho Farm Credit Services

February 25, 2005

To Whom It May Concern:

Idaho Farm Credit Services agrees to provide financing in an amount no greater than $65,000 for
the purchase of materials and labor for the conversion to geothermal energy sources for Lee Hart
owner of Hart Dairy, of Shelly, Idaho. This letter is a commitment by Idaho Farm Credit Services
to finance 75% the project up to $65,000.

Sincerely,

Patrick Lanley
Sr. Business Analyst
Idaho Farm Credit Services

71
72
Appendix D. Federal Tax Return

73
74
Appendix E. Hart Dairy Income Statement
Hart Dairy
Current Year Profit and Loss Statement, or Income Statement,
or Earnings Statement

January 1 through December 31, 2005

INCOME
Milk Sold 756,000
Calves Sold 19,000
Cattle Sold 63,000
Government Payments 18,500

Total Income 856,500

EXPENSES
Labor 74,000
Payroll Taxes 6,500
Repairs 6,200
Interest (Operating 18,000
Interest (Other) 60,000
Rent/Lease 32,000
Feed 327,000
Seed 13,000
Fertilizer 68,000
Chemicals 17,000
Custom Hire 8,000
Supplies 11,000
Breeding/Veterinarian 17,000
Fuel, Gas, Oil 33,000
Property Taxes 12,300
Insurance 4,700
Natural Gas 5,100
Utilities 24,125
Depreciation 59,000

Total Expenses 795,925

NET INCOME 60,575

75